20052237 Ver 1_Complete File_20060227

O T?c9QG
>- O?F Wa
February 27, 2006
John P. Myers
Sandler At Wakefield, LLC
3209 Gresham Lake Road, Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27615
Re: Cedar Grove At Wakefield, Wake County
DWQ #2005-2237; USACE Action ID. No. 200620190
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Dear Mr. Myers:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water. Quality
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3563 issued to John P. Myers of Sandler At Wakefield, LLC, dated
February 27, 2006. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project including (but not limited to) Solid Waste,-Sediment and Erosion Control, Stormwater, Dam Safety, Non-
discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
7 Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AWK1cbklijm
Attachments: Certificate of Completion
NCDWQ - EEP - Summary of Mitigation Impacts
cc: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, USACOE
Eric Kulz, DWQ, Raleigh Regional Office
DLR Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Kevin Martin, Soil & Environmental Consultants, P.A., 11010 Raven Ridge Road, Raleigh, NC 27614
Filename: 052237CedarGroveAtWakefield(Wake)401 IC
None orthCarolina
Nakrally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycledl10% Post consumer Paper
e'
Sandler At Wakefield, LLC
Page 2 of 5
February 27, 2006
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217
of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Regulations in 15 NCAC 211,
Section .0500 to Mr. John P. Myers of Sandler At Wakefield, LLC, NC to fill 188 linear feet of stream in the Neuse River
Basin, associated with the construction of the Cedar Grove At Wakefield residential subdivision located west of
Wakefield Plantation Drive, near Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina, pursuant to an application filed on the 20h day
of December of 2005, and in additional correspondence received January 10, 2006.
The application and supporting documentation provides adequate assurance that the proposed work will not result in a
violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina
certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and
PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application, the supporting documentation, and conditions hereinafter set
forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design submitted in the application materials and as described in the
Public Notice. If the project is changed, prior to notification a new application for a new Certification is required. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible
for complying with all conditions of this Certification. Any new owner must notify the Division and request the
Certification be issued in their name. Should wetland or stream fill be requested in the future, additional compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in' 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). If any plan revisions from the
approved site plan result in a change in stream or wetland impact or an increase in impervious surfaces, the DWQ shall
be notified in writing and a new application for 401 Certification may be required. For this approval to be valid,
compliance with the conditions listed below is required.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general conditions of this
Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are approved including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved (Units Plan Location or Reference
Stream 188 linear feet) I PN and Construction Plans
Sediment and Erosion Control:
2. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper
design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to protect
surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control measures must be
such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow
sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the
project.
c. Sufficient materials required for stabilization and/or repair of erosion control measures and stormwater
routing and treatment shall be on site at all times.
X"
Sandler At Wakefield, LLC
Page 3 of 5
February 27, 2006
3. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond the footprint of
the impacts depicted in the 404/401Permit Application. All construction activities, including the design,
installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices, shall be
performed so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur;
4. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent
practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they
shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date that the Division of Land Resources
has released the project;
5. Protective Fencing - The outside buffer, wetland or water boundary and along the construction corridor within
these boundaries approved under this authorization shall be clearly marked with orange warning fencing (or
similar high visibility material) for the areas that have been approved to infringe within the buffer, wetland or
water prior to any land disturbing activities to ensure compliance with 15A NCAC 2B .0233 and GC 3404;
Continuing Compliance:
6. Mr. John P. Myers and Sandler At Wakefield, LLC, shall conduct construction activities in a manner consistent
with State water quality standards (including any requirements resulting from compliance with section 303(d) of
the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of State law and federal law. - If the Division
determines that such standards or laws are not being met (including the failure to sustain a designated or
achieved use) or that State or federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure
compliance, the Division may reevaluate and modify this Certification to include conditions appropriate to
assure compliance with such standards and requirements in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0507(d). Before
modifying the Certification, the Division shall notify Mr. John P. Myers and/or Sandler At Wakefield, LLC, NC
and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 211.0503 and
provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance with 15A NCAC 211.0504. Any new or revised conditions
shall be provided to Mr. John P. Myers and/or Sandler At Wakefield, LLC, NC in writing, shall be provided to
the United States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any Permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project;
Mitigation:
7. Compensatory Mitigation Using the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
Mitigation must be provided for the proposed impacts as specified in the table below. We understand that you
wish to make a payment to the Wetlands Restoration Fund administered by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) to meet this mitigation requirement. This has been determined by the DWQ to be a suitable
method to meet the mitigation requirement. Until the EEP receives and clears your check (made payable to:
DENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program Office), no impacts specified in this Authorization Certificate shall
occur. The EEP should be contacted at [phone] if you have any questions concerning payment into a
restoration fund. You have one month from the date of this approval to make this payment. For accounting
purposes, this Authorization Certificate authorizes payment into the Wetlands Restoration Fund to meet
the following compensatory mitigation requirement:
Compensatory Mitigation
Required River and Sub-basin Number
Stream 188 linear feet Neuse/03020201
1 ."
Sandler At Wakefield, LLC
Page 4 of 5
February 27, 2006
Placement of Culverts:
8. Culvert Installation
Culverts required for this project shall be installed in such a manner that the original stream profiles are not
altered. Existing stream dimensions (including the cross section dimensions, pattern, and longitudinal profile)
must be maintained above and below locations of each culvert. Culverts shall be designed and installed to allow
for aquatic life movement as well as to prevent head cutting of the streams. If any of the existing pipes are or
become perched, the appropriate stream grade shall be re-established or, if the pipes installed in a perched
manner, the pipes shall be removed and re-installed correctly.
Culvert(s) shall not be installed in such a manner that will cause aggradation or erosion of the stream up or down
stream of the culvert(s). Existing stream dimensions (including the cross section dimensions, pattern and
longitudinal profile) shall be maintained above and below locations of each culvert. Therefore, you must provide
plans with adequate details that indicate that the current stability of the stream will be maintained or enhanced.
You must receive written approval from this Office for the above plans before the culvert(s) is installed.
Culvert(s) must be installed according to approved plans.
Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands must be placed below the elevation of
the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20 percent of the culvert
diameter for culverts having a diameter less"than 48 inches, to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life.
Design and placement of culverts and other structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be
conducted in a manner that may result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or
upstream and down stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the
equilibrium shall be maintained if requested in writing by DWQ.
The establishment of native, woody vegetation and other soft stream bank stabilization techniques must be used
where practicable instead of rip rap or other bank hardening methods. If rip-rap is necessary, it shall not be placed
in the stream bed, unless specifically approved by the Division of Water Quality.
Installation of culverts in wetlands must ensure continuity of water movement and be designed to adequately
accommodate high water or flood conditions.
Upon completion of the project, the Applicant shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of Completion"
form to notify NCDWQ when all work included in the §401 Certification has been completed. The responsible
party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality
upon completion of the project. Please send photographs upstream and downstream of each culvert site to
document correct installation along with the Certificate of Completion form.
Deed Notifications:
9. Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all lots with remaining jurisdictional wetlands and
waters or areas within 50 feet of all streams and ponds. These mechanisms shall be put in place within 30 days of.
the date of issuance of the 401 Certification letter or the issuance of the 404 Permit (whichever is later). A sample
deed notification format can be downloaded from the 401/Wetlands Unit web site at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. DWQ shall be sent copies of all deed restrictions applied to these lots;
I V,
Sandler At Wakefield, LLC
Page 5 of 5
February 27, 2006
Other Conditions:
10. Construction Stormwater Permit NCGO10000
Upon the approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan issued by the Division of Land Resources
(DLR) or a DLR delegated local erosion and sedimentation control program, an NPDES General stormwater
permit (NCGO10000) administered by DWQ is automatically issued to the project. This General Permit allows
stormwater to be discharged during land disturbing construction activities as stipulated by conditions in the
permit. If your project is covered by this permit [applicable to construction projects that disturb one (1) or
more acres], full compliance with permit conditions including the sedimentation control plan, self-monitoring,
record keeping and reporting requirements are required. A copy of this permit and monitoring report forms may
be found at http://112o.enr.state.iie.uslsu/Forms Documents.htm.;
11. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer Rules,
and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached certificate of completion to
the 401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
Also, this approval to procedd with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your
application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within
sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a written petition conforming
to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. If modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to
an adjudicatory hearing on the modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of the
Certification.. Unless such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 27 h day of February, 2006
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Nr 4 1
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
WQC #3563
AWK/cbk/i m
I t'
C•?O? W A i F9QG Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
p Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401 Water Quality Certification
Summary of Permitted Impacts and Mitigation Requirements
In accordance with 15A NCAC 211.0500, the Sandler At Wakefield, LLC has permission as outlined below to impact 188
linear feet of stream for the purpose(s) of constructing the proposed Cedar Grove At Wakefield residential subdivision
located west of Wakefield Plantation Drive, near Raleigh, Wake County. All activities associated with these authorized
impacts must be conducted with the conditions listed in the attached Permit transmittal letter. THIS PERMIT IS NOT
VALID WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENTS.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS, ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LOCATION: Raleigh, NC
COUNTY Wake
BASIN/ SUB BASIN Neuse/03020201
As required by 15A NCAC 2H.0500, and the conditions of this Permit, you are required to compensate for the above impacts
through the restoration, creation, enhancement or preservation of wetlands and surface waters as outlined below prior to
conducting any activities that impact or degrade the waters of the state.
Note: Acreage requirements proposed to be mitigated through the Ecosystem Enhancement Program must be rounded to one-
quarter acre increments and linear foot requirements must be rounded up to the nearest foot according to 15 2R.0503(b).
Impacts Mitigation
188 linear feet of stream 188 linear feet of stream
In correspondence dated December 12, 2005, the EEP indicated that up to 188 linear feet of mitigation will be conducted by
EEP if necessary for the 401 Water Quality Certification and 404 Permit.
One of the options you have available to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirement is through the payment of a fee to
the Wetlands Restoration Fund per NCAC 2R.0503. If you choose this option, please sign this form and mail the form along
with a copy of your 401 Certification or Buffer Approval to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program at the address below. An
invoice for the appropriate amount of payment will be sent to you upon receipt of this form. PLEASE NOTE, THE ABOVE
IMPACTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL YOU RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT YOUR PAYMENT HAS BEEN
PROCESSED BY THE ECOSYTEM ENHANCMENT PROGRAM.
Signature Date
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1652 Mail Service Center
RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1652
[phone]
Filename: 052237CedarGroveAtWakefield( Wake)401_IC-EEP
NOi Carolina
?tmully
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www.ncwatg;iuality.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 . Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 500/6 Recycled/100/6 Post Consumer Paper
-- 44 ua - A,JUI 1'i-vvn
LttC.H•%CL K EASLEY
^ +-on.*vev r.Fnca L
-lJ-JU , 0•11AM , rlutijut at IIILLIAmIi-*
ti
'w.s•
State of North Carollna
UCparltne-niofjStlce
f' 0. BOX 029 Reply to.
KALUGH
2: U 13•oCZ9
Dc=mhcr 19, 1997
Mr. Steve W. Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
Division of Water Quality
Dcpartmcm of Environment rind
Natural Resources
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
tits 00o uoou:; 2/ 6
t
Rathrrt Jo,tes Cooper
Water and Land Secdtot
t:,t•irotunental Divitiua
Ttlep%wc: (919) 716.,604
tAJ?: (9I9) 716-6764
Re: Common Law Vested Rights and Neuse River NSW Rules
Dear Mr. Tedder:
In your October Z9,1997 memorandum to Dan Oakley, you have raised several questions
about vested rights and the Neuse River NSW rules, including questions raised by Or" Thorpe
and Eric Galamb concerning the issuance of 401 Wetter Quality Certifications to two
dcvelopments -- the Wakefield and Sweetwater developtnenL0.
Intrnductiott
The tnoo recent explanation of the common law rested rights theory is found in
Brosyning-Ferris lndartriec v Guilford County Board of Adjustment. _„ N.C. App. 434
S.F.2d-? (1997), which includes the following dL
The common law vested rights doctrine is "rooted in the 'due process of lave and
the 'law of the land' clau9ca of the federal and state constitutions" and "has
evolved as a constitutional limitation on the stales exercise of its police powers."
Godfrey v. Zoning Bd of Aglucrtntent, 317 N.C. 51, 62, 344 S.E.2d 272, 279
(1986). A party's common law right to develop and/or construct vests when: (1)
the patty has made, prior to the amendment of a zoning ordinance, expenditures or
inctnred contractual obligations "substrntial in amount, incidental to or as part of
the acquisition of the building site or the construction or equipment of the
proposed building," Town of NilUbarough v. Smith, 276 N.C. at 55,170 S.E.2d at
909; (2) the obligations and/or expenditures arc incurred in good faidi. Id.; (33) the
1 'this is set advisory letter which has riot been approved in accordance with proectwres fa issuing an
Attorney General's opinion.
£00 'd 0690 999 616:931 Oil S33d0'13A30 0131 damyA £Z: Zl (flH1) 86 tSl - 'KVP
slave' by;l ill t-Luu1c • 1-15-96 ; 9:11AN ; HLM-ON & WILLIAMS- 919 556 a690ia 3: 6
Mr. Steve W. Tedder
December 19,1997
Page 2
obligations and/or cxpcnditures were made in reasonable reliance on and aRcr the
issuance of a valid building permit, if such permit is required, authuiixing the use
requested by the party.. M. (requiring building permit); In re Campsites
Unlimtrett 287 N.C. 4939 301, 215 S.F.2d 73, 77 (1975) (permit not required fur
vesting if permit not required under law in effect at time of expenditures);
Adecklenhurg County v. illesrbery, 32 N.C. App. 630, 635, 233 S.E.2d 658, 661
(1977) (a mistakenly-issued permit cannot give rise to a vested right); Warner Y.
W de 0, Inc., 263 N.C. 37, 41, 13H S.E.2d 752, 786 (1964) (expeadiMms'made
prior to issuaaee of permit "not made in reliance on the permit"); sce Avco Cam.
Developers v. South Coast Reg. Comm'n, 553 P. 2d 546, 551 (1976) (Preliminary
governmental approval not sufficient to support vested right); and (4) the
amended ordinance is a detriment to the party. See Russell Y. Guilford Couhty,
100 N.C. App. 541, 545, 397 S.E.2d 335, 337 (1990); see also David W. Owens,
Legislative ZartWg De itipns (institute of 4overnmen% 1993). The burden is on
the landowner to prove each of the above four elements.
N.C. App. at 494 S.F.7d at 414. For your ptac:tic:al application.of this doctrine in the 401
cuntcxt, no vested right to develop can be established prior to issuance of the 401 Certification
and the 404 permit. Criterion number 3 requires the developer to prove that he has made
expenditures (or incurred contractual obligations) in reliance upon a validly issued pc.-mit, and
the permit required in the 401 context is the federal 404 permit into which the State's 401
Certification is incorpora(ed.
For a phased development. the common law vested right only applies to that part of a
previously approved project actually underway at the time of an ordinance change (or in the
DWQ question, a rule change) and does not apply wliere construction has not commenced and
the project is merely in the planning stages. See, In re Todlock. 261 N.C. 120, 134 S.h.2d 177
(1964); Stokes County Y. Pock, 91 N.C. App. 616.372 S.E.2d 726 (1988).
1. For the Wakefield and the Sweetwater develol)ments, are vested rights grintcd?
Wakefield Development
The essential facts with reference to the Wakefield Development ate that there are two
developers of this property: a resideotiailgolf course developer and a conunercial developer.
Numerous meetings with both developers were held during 1997, at which both devetopers were
advised that the project would be considered one project for 404 permitting purposes.
Nonetheless, on May 11, 1997, the residentialIgolf course developer submitted a revised
application for a 404 permit and 401 Water duality Certification to the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Division of Water Quality (UWQ); on May 23, 1997, DWQ
400 'd 0690 9SS 616:131 a99 SH3d073A30 MIAMI 6t*Z1 ((IHI B6,Sl-VP
??+of l?111 t wun
i:ir. ;tevc XV. Tedder
December 19, 1997
Pauc 3
- W- as . - i ZM1 , nun i tnv s n, u.. i nma- U t V 000 upyu ; iF 4/ 5
issued a 401 Water Quality Certification to the residential/golf course developer for 0.2934 acres
of impact.
The commercial developer's 404/401 Water Quality Certification application was
received on July 31, 1997, after the Neuse "buffer" rule went into effect.
Eric Galamb usked whether the residential and commercial developments have vested
rights for purposes of application of the temporary Neuse "buffer" rule to the 401 Water Qw-dity
Certification process, and if vested, do the vested rights exist for all phases.
As a general rule, the Neuse "buffer" nile will be effective unless the party against whom
it is applied can establish he-has acquired a "vested" right to develop as permitted by the issuance
of a 401 certification and a 404 permit- Thus, in this particular case, the commercial developer
must comply with the Neusc "buffer" rule because he has obtained no permit or certification and,
therefore, has not acquired a vested right to proceed with development. The residential j
developer is in a somewhat different position because he had obtained a 401 Certification and x-
404 permit prior to the passage of the Neuse "buffer" rule. The Division, bowevtr, may revoke
Viand amend it to require cornpliance with die buffer rule unless the residential developer
establishes it has a vested right to proccod in accordancepth the terms of its 401 and 404
permit. The mss cntial developer wow nee to prone thdt;ft ma expenditures or incurred
contractual obligations, substantial in amount in reliance on t original 01 and 404 rntit'
,.,hat the obligations or gxpenditures were incurred in good fnith; acid tl buffer rule is a
detriment to him. If residential developer can prove these t criteria, he will ave a vested
right to develop as approved in the 401 turd 404 permit, and a revocation or amendalent •vou d
,not be Icgally supportable. - _--?? --
Sweetwater Development
A 401 Water Quality Certification and '404 permit were issued to the Sweetwater
Development in 1995. The project involves 17 acres of impacts to wetlands. Sweetwater has not
begun constructiou on the project. According to the terms of the 404 Permit find the 401
Certification, if construction is not Initiated by January 21, 1998, the 404 Permit and the 401
Water Quality Certification will expire, and a new 401 Watcr Quality Certification and 404
permit will be netted to till these wetlands. Eric Galamb has asked whether the Sweetwater
Development has a vested right to develop after the 401 Water Quality Certification expires. The
developer ltas no vested right to develop after the 401 Certification expires, and should he seek a
new 401 Certifcadon, the Division must Apply the temporary Neuse "buffer" rule. In addition, if
the Division attempted to revoke the 401 Certification and reissue another Certification which
Incorporated the new wetlands rules and the Ncuse "buffer" rule, the developer would have to
prove that it had acquired a vcstcd right to develop pursuant to the original 401 Certification by
showing that it had made expenditures or incurred contractual obligations, suhst,mtial ill amount,
S00 'd 0690 9SS 616:981 011 HUMAN 0131 tl3llY11 SNI (nH1) 86 ,S1- 'HYP
stm f BY : I afti t'LAOK
' Lvl W . 1 cadcr
Decentbcr 19, 1997
Page 4
1-15-88 : 9:12AM : ttUYMN & WILLIAMS- 918 55b 065U;# S/ 6
in reliance ort the 401 Certification and the 404 permit; that the obligations or er-penditures were
incurred in good faith; and that the new requirements were a deidutcrrt to it.
2. For large developments with many phases we may have issued a 401 Certification
for one phase. Are the additional phases "grandfathered" whein the 401
Certification request is made or are the Neese rules to be applied?
If the Division has issued a 401 Certification and the COE has issued a 404 permit for
only one phase of a phased development, the common la%v vested right would apply only to that
part of a project where construction has begun and for which a 401 Certification and 404 permit
has been issued. If no 401 Certification has been issued for'the additional phases, the developer
has no vested right to develop based upon the rules that were in effect at the time of his initial
401 Certification. 'Me Neuse buffer rule would apply to subsequent phases.
3. Pteme pnrvide n Zencral opinion of the ray to proceed as it relates to the Neuse
rules and the 401 Certification pro:mm.
The vetted rights question Rhould not atise unless the Division has already, issued a 401
Certification and the COL• has also issued a 404 permit. Tf the Mvision seeks to revoke or amend
that 401 Cenificatiort to incorporate additional requirements that have become ef -ective since the
date of the original Certification, the burden is on the developer to prove that he had acquired a
vested right to develop pursuant to the original 401 Certification by showing that he had mada
expenditures or incurred contractual obligations, substantial in amount, in reliance on the 401
Certifieatiort and the 404 permit; that the obligations or expenditures were incurred in goad faith;
and that the new requirements were a detriment to him.
4. In. general, can you provide guidance on nb:rt criteria we can use to determine
tvbcther development projects are grandfnthered for purposes of implementing the
Neuse temporary "buffer" rule?
As a general rule, if the project requires a 401 Cenifteation or other permit from the
Division, the proper analysis is discussed above. Briefly, the applicant can establish no vested
right prior to the issuance of the required permit.
With respect to projects which dO not require any permit from the Division, the developer
may establish a vested right to proceed with his development in contravention of the buffer rule
if he can show that Ile made expenditures or incurred cotltructual obligations, substantial in
arnount, prior to the effective date of the buffer rule; that the obligations or expenditures were
incurred in good faith; and that the buffer rule is a detriment to him. The "good faith" element is
not present if the developer had knowledge of the adoption of the rule by the EMC and
900 'd 0690 9SS 616:131 311 SHU013A30 0131 d3HYX SNI (nH1) 86 .S t - 'NVP
SENT BY* 13TH FLOOR 1-I5-96 9 13AM HUNTON 8 WILLIAMS- 915 556 0680:9 6/ 6
' i4 r. 5u ve W. Tedder
' December 19,1997
Page 5
attempted to thwart the rule by making expenditure, a fc%v hours prior to the effective date of the
rule. Warner v. W do O., Inc., 263 NC 37,136 SE2d 904 (1964).
1f you have any fvrthct questions oa this issue do nut hesitate to call.
9i rely,
?.c.?
am;J
Daniel C. Oak-ley
Senior Depu Attorney General
athryn on Coo
Special ry Attottrcy Gcncral
r
it 13. Hickey
ssistant Attorney ral
KJC:/klj
cc: Eric Galamb i
Greg Thorpe
Dennis Ramsey
20647•

l00 'd 0690 9SS 616:131 99'I SH3d013A3a 0131 d3AYM 9Z: Z 1 (RHI) 86 S I - 'NY?
Date: t 13 c?f?
Triage Check List
a
ProjeEt Name:
DWQ#: C5 7
County:
To: ? • ARO Kevin Barnett
? FRO Ken Averitte
? MRO Alan Johnson
? RRO. Mike Horan
From.

? WaRO Tour Steffens and Kyle Barnes
? WiRO Noelle Lutheran
? WSRO Daryl Lamb
GI `?
Telephone (919)
)
The file attached. Is being forwarde4... our for your evaluation.
Please call if you nee&ba ' tance.
Stream length impacted' j?
? Stream determination
? Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface'.waters on USFW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules' (Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, 'Catawba, Randleman)
-}
? Pond fill ;f
? Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching `
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings7• -
? Cumulative impact concern
i
1
Comments:
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] k • • Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
2 t December 20, 2005
S&EC Project # 3037.W0
To: US Army Corps of Engineers NC Division of Water Quality
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit
Attn: Monte Mathews Attn: Cyndi Karoly
6508 Falls of the Neuse Rd 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Suite 120 Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Raleigh, N.C. 27615
From: Kevin Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Re: Cedar Grove at Wakefield
Raleigh, Wake County, NC
USACE Action ID #200620190
?O1
r,
On behalf of the owners, Sandler at Wakefield LLC (Attn: Randy Smith), please find attached a complete application and
supplemental information requesting written concurrence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC-DWQ) that the activities proposed below may precede utilizing an Individual Permit. In
addition, written authorization from the NC-DWQ is requested for an Associated Water Quality Certification. Please contact me
at [phone] if you have any questions or require additional information.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Name Cedar Grove at Wakefield
Project Type Residential Subdivision
Owner / Applicant Sandler at Wakefield LLC
County Wake
Nearest Town Raleigh
Waterbod Name UT Richland Creek
Basin / Sub-basin 03020201
Index Number 27-21-(1.5)
Class WS IV
IMPACT SUMMARY
Stream Impact (acres): 0.01
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.01
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 188
Attachments:
Eng Form 4345
Pre-construction Notification (PCN) Application Form
Agent Authorization
USGS Vicinity Map
Detailed Impact Maps and Overall Site Plan Maps
DWQ & USACE Stream ID form plus pictures
$475 Water Quality Certification Fee
NCEEP Acceptance Letter
Adjacent Property Owners
Other Approvals
3/9/05 Letter to the City of Raleigh
3/11/05 E-mail from the City of Raleigh
6/13/05 NC-DOT Letter
11/01/05 City of Raleigh
10/03/05 Withers & Ravenel Letter
Impervious Calculations
Charlotte Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C
Concord, NC 28025
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Greensboro Office.
3817-E Lawndale Drive
Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT 11 J ?} 2 I ! OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
(33 CFR 325) Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directories of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite
1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302= and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503.
Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction
over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws required permits authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable
waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the
purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this from will be used in evaluating the application for a permit.
Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor
can a permit be issues.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS I THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Sandler at Wakefield, LLC
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
3209 Gresham Lake Road, Suite 160, Raleigh, NC 27615 11010 Raven Ridge Road, Raleigh, NC 27614
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 919-556-4310 b. Business 919-846-5900
11.
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, Soil & Environmental Consultants. PA to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon
request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
(See attached authorization)
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Cedar Grove at Wakefield
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN lit applicable) UTotRichland Creek 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
15. LOCATION OF THE PROJECT
Wake NC
N/A
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, (see instructions)
See attached USGS Topo Vicinity Map
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
South of proposed Hwy 98 Bypass, East of Falls of the Neuse Road, West of Wakefield Plantation Blvd.
ENG. FORM 4345, Feb 94
EDITION OF SEPT 91 IS OBSOLETE
(Proponent: CECW-OR)
1 S. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Construction of internal subdivision road consisting of one crossing of a stream.
19. Project Purpose !Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
To allow development of uplands for a residential subdivision that meets City of Raleigh requirements (See attached 11/1/05 letter from the City of
Raleigh and 10/3/05 and 3/8/05 letters by the project engineer Withers & Ravenel).
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
To construct an internal subdivision road, specifically a crossing of a first order perennial stream.
21. Type(s) of material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Native soils acquired on-site, 300 cubic yards below mean high water, 4500 cubic yards total to construct crossing.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
0.01 acres (188 linear feet) of perennial stream.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No X_ IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
See attached list.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
See attached list.
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits.
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly
authorized agent of the applicant.
0
5
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT
DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized
agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly
and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or
representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry,
shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
k.. ua.y yaiukuuu ILVIII 1b 11V1 app icame to tnis project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Individual
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), chpck-here
II. Applicant Information yl
D LE7 ; t 2005
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Sandler at Wakefield LLC
Mailing Address: Attn: Randy Smith
3209 Gresham Lake Road
Suite 160
Raleigh NC 27615
Telephone Number: 919-556-4310 Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Kevin Martin
Company Affiliation:_ S&EC, PA
Mailing Address:_ 11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh NC 27614
Telephone Number: 919-846-5900 Fax Number: 919-846-9467
E-mail Address: kmartinesandec.com
Page 1 of 9
111. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Cedar Grove at Wakefield
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Raleigh
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Wakefield
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): East of Falls of the Neuse
Road, South of the proposed Hwy 98 Bypass, and West of Wakefield Plantation Drive.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.9660 °N 78.5552 °W
6. Property size (acres): 1900 in entire project, 1300 within residential tracts
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: UT of Richland Creek
8. River Basin: Neuse
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mgps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application:_ Residential or undeveloped land, some recreational lands
(golf course)
Page 2 of 9
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Construction of a phase of a residential subdivision using typical grading equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Comply with City of Raleigh requirements
regarding internal subdivision roads, which require one stream crossing for this phase
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. Wetlands were delineated by another consultant and confirmed by Eric
Alsmeyer of the Corps on 4/17/97. Several nationwide permits have been issued including;
199602047. 1999821238, 199821239, and 200120770. DWQ #961148. The project was
previously determined to have "vested rights" and is not subject to the Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Rules. Cumulative permitted project impacts to date are NW 26 (0.643 act
(0.304), NW 13 (0.098), NW 39 (0.329)=1.374 ac.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No additional impacts are anticipated.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
Page 3 of 9
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: One perpendicular crossing of
a stream for an internal subdivision road. See attached Sheet 1 "Wetland Impact Map" and
Overall Site Plan for this phase of the project by Withers & Ravenel
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both ctnint-im. and fl. ^A;--
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
es/no Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: Unknown >10
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate ncrenaP mnlt;nlv 1Pnrr41k V -,;A+1, +U-- .7..Ap 1- A? c-'n

Stream Impact
Number
indicate on ma

Stream Name

Type of Impact

Perennial or
Intermittent? auul, lllVll LLl V 1
Average
Stream Width
Before Impact LLG V `FJ,JU
Impact
Length
linear feet V.
Area of
Impact
acres
1 UT of Richland Creek Fill/Culvert Perennial 2' 188' 0.01

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 180' 0.01
Page 4 of 9
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dred 'n , flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
(if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, ba Impact
(indicate on man) y,
Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resultin from the
Stream Im act (acres): 0.01
Wetland lm act (acres): 0
O en Water Im act acres): 0
Total Im act to Waters of the U.S. acres 0.01
Total Stream fin pact linear feet : 188,
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. The clients attempted to avoid
Page 5 of 9
this crossing by cul-de-sacing the road on each side or by installing a bottomless culvert (see
attached 3/19/05 letter from Withers & Ravenel) The City denied the request to cul-de-sac the
roads (see attached 3/11/05 e-mail). The client also requested a connection to Falls of the Neuse
Road from DOT which would meet the City's requirements but that request was denied (see the
6/13/05 letter from DOT).
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
httl2://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strinWde.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The client proposes payment to NCEEP at a 1:1 ratio. Since everynossible attempt to
avoid the impact within our clients control has been made.
Page 6 of 9
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wW/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 188'
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ? No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No ® Project is vested.
Page 7 of 9
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 N/A 3 (2 for Catawba) N/A
2 N/A 1.5 N/A
Total N/A N/A
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0244, or.0260. None required.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. The proposed project will have 24% impervious
surface (calculations attached). Therefore DWO stormwater treatment is not reauired. The
project is not subject to the Neuse Buffer rules so diffuse flow demonstration is not required.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Municipal
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
Page 8 of 9
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
ApplicanfAgenll's Signature Date
(Agent's signatureis-valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
12-19-'05 17:45 FROM- 9195564310 T-462 P002/002 F-453
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
All Blanks To Be Filled In By The Current Landowner
Name: Sandler at Wakefield, LLC
Address: 3209 Gresham Lake Road, Suite 160
_
Raleigh, NC 27615,
Phone: [phone]
Project Name/ Description: -Cedar Grove at Wakefield- S&EC Project #3037.WO
Date: 12/08/05
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Attn: -Monte Matthews
Field Office: Raleigh
Re: Wetlands Related Consulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
I, the current ro er owner, hereby designate and authorize Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA to
act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon request
supplemental information in support of applications, etc. from this day forward. The -8th day of
-December, 2005
This notification supersedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
NOTICE: This authorization, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only for
government officials to enter the property when accompanied by S&EC staff. You should call S&EC
to arrange a site meeting prior to visiting the site.
Print Prop rty Owner's Name

Property Owner's Signature
cc: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NCDENR - DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
cc: Mr. Kevin Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA

(5?1

Property Owner Owner's Mailing Address Property Location Address
CALLOWAY ON THE GREEN C/O CENTEX HOMES' 3051 FALLS OF NEUSE RD
TOWNHOMES 3739 NATIONAL DR STE 101 WAKE FOREST NC 27587-0000
ASSOC INCC/O CENTEX HOMES RALEIGH NC 27612-4844
Administratve Data Transfer Information Assessed Value
Old Map # 215-
Map/Scale 1830 01 Deed Date 12/512001 Land Value Assessed $78,544
VCS 19RA900 Book & Page 09195 0397 Bldg. Value Assessed
City RALEIGH Revenue Stamps
Fire District Pkg Sale Date Tobacco Pounds
Township WAKE FOREST Pkg Sale Price Tobacco Value
Land Class H.ASSOC Land Sale Date
ETJ RA Land Sale Price Land Use Value
Spec Dist(s) Use Value Deferment
Zoning R-6 Improvement Summary Historic Deferment
History ID 1 Total Deferred Value
History ID 2 Total Units 0
Acreage 1.36 Recycle Units 0
Permit Date Apt/SC Sqft Use/Hist Assessed
Permit # Heated Area Total Value Assessed $78,544

Property Owner Owner's Mailing Address Property Location Address
WAKEFIELD GLEN L LC C/O CROSLAND GROUP INC 2411 GARDEN HILL DR
C/O CROSLAND GROUP INC 227 W TRADE ST STE 900 RALEIGH NC 27614-6896
CHARLOTTE NC 28202-1675
Administratve Data Transfer Information Assessed Value
Old Map # 215-00000-0000
Map/Scale 1830 01 Deed Date . 3/30/1999 Land Value Assessed $1,968,000
VCS ANCRA01 Book & Page 08280 0866 Bldg. Value Assessed $17,438,263
City RALEIGH Revenue Stamps
Fire District Pkg Sale Date Tobacco Pounds
Township WAKE FOREST Pkg Sale Price Tobacco Value
Land Class APRTMENT Land Sale Date 6115/1998
ETJ RA Land Sale Price $2,108,000 Land Use Value
Spec Dist(s) Use Value Deferment
Zoning R-6 Improvement Summary Historic Deferment
History ID 1 Total Deferred Value
History ID 2 Total Units 246
Acreage 22.55 Recycle Units 246
Permit Date Apt/SC Sqft 221,964 Use/Hist Assessed
Permit # Heated Area 286,520 Total Value Assessed $19,406,263
Property Owner
CAROLINA PRINCESS LLC Owner s Mailing Address
1034 JONES WYND
WAKE FOREST NC 27587-7381 Property Location Address
2724 OLD NC 98 HWY
WAKE FOREST NC 27587-0000
Administratva Data Transfer Information Assessed Value
[
ld Map # 216-00000-0105
ap/Scale 1830 01 Deed Date 12/4/2000 Land Value Assessed $107,810
CS CBW0001 Book & Page 08748 2595 Bldg. Value Assessed
City Revenue Stamps 1000.00
Fire District 23 Pkg Sale Date Tobacco Pounds
Township WAKE FOREST Pkg Sale Price Tobacco Value
Land Class VACANT Land Sale Date 1214/2000
ETJ WC Land Sale Price $500,000 Land Use Value
Spec Dist(s) Use Value Deferment
Zoning R-00 Improvement Summary Historic Deferment
History ID 1 Total Deferred Value
History ID 2 Total Units 0
Acreage 4.95 Recycle Units 0
Permit Date ApUSC Sgft Use/Hist Assessed
Permit # Heated Area Total Value Assessed $107,810
Property Owner
TOURNAMENT PLAYERS CLUB OF
RAL LLC
C/O PGA TOUR GOLF COURSE PROP
INC Owner's Mailing Address
C/O PGA TOUR GOLF COURSE PROP
INC
100 PGA TOUR BLVD
PONTE VEDRA BEACH FL 32082-3046 Property Location Address
3330 WAKEFIELD PLANTATION DR
WAKE FOREST NC 27587-0000
Administratve Data Transfer Information Assessed Value
Old Map # 215-00000-0000
Map/Scale 1830 01 Deed Date 312612002 Land Value Assessed $150,150
VCS FNRA001 Book & Page 09349 0010 Bldg. Value Assessed $793,602
City RALEIGH Revenue Stamps 1757.00
Fire District Pkg Sale Date Tobacco Pounds
Township WAKE FOREST Pkg Sale Price Tobacco Value
Land Class COMMERCL Land Sale Date 3126/2002
ETJ RA Land Sale Price $878,500 Land Use Value
Spec Dist(s) Use Value Deferment
Zoning R-6 Improvement Summary Historic Deferment
History ID 1 Total Deferred Value
History ID 2 Total Units 0
Acreage 10.01 Recycle Units 0
Permit Date
1 8/1712001 Apt/SC Sgft Use/Hist Assessed
permit #
1 0000012472 Heated Area 5,201 Total Value Assessed $943,752
(( I T

Lam.
P
n
A
1
-000
401
0
G
A
N
XS. O+ke t Te A e ra k Sq C:.k e Loc..ftk•?-
Subdivision Approval
S-97-03
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 9/4/03
Date Approved" 2/2/04
Construction Drawing
S-97-03
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 7/1/05
Date Approved: 11/14/05
Water and Sewer Permit
S-97-03
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 7/1/05
Date Approved: 11/14/05
Grading Permit
Transaction #99540
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 10/6/04
Date Approved: 11/17/04
Landscape Permit
Transaction #99333
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 10/6/04
Date Approved: 10/14/04
Stormwater Management Permit
Nitrogen Reduction
N-95-05
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 6/13/05
Date Approved: 711/05
Record Plat
S-97-03
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 11/30/05
Date Approved: pending
1(51??/Jp -?) (l -?
'
\l _), /\ - `?`-, / ? .? /,?': -.7)• ^"N --../ ??. ?,. ?a??? p ' ?/? / 150 •, ??
1• =' q - ?? ?. .??•?.•;?`_ r by
i :?'?,;tl ,???a%" %?-'? ? ?r ••: 1; ? 2000 ? ???1? rr? r `\•• ? ? ? ? % -_>> ?`
250
j (71
1dMply)"i??lVf1U ^YR)
MN E
GN
7'
124 MILS 1'26'
25 MILS
M GRID AND 1987 MAGNETIC NORTH
DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET
7 11? v ?? ?. ? \v1
1 $. 4 1
s00
SCALE 1:24 000 1
0
1000 0 1000 1 MILE
2000 3000 4000
5000 6000 7000 FEET
1 5 0
1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
WAKE FOREST QUADRANGLE
NORTH CAROLINA-WAKE CO.
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
WAKEFIELD
ove to 1k
aMYe >sM[
IWO
d
E
D
B
A
F
i
{.W itC3
mow..
caaa r
O ve. t
. % N

;f
y? i

# b

i.

J

}f''Y TT,?,C•a IR.acA+Y.?'y?.sr:stiww:?w.?_>.«.r..?.++YC'"Y; 4

i

•fM9OR ?i : ? F C Q ? ti
p sm nat nnu+ .w f S
9 WETLAND IMPACTS WAKEFIELD 8-98 SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. Inc. S&EC J08 #3037
a tff Mwi wMw4 l.r?bi.M. IMi, fi?Fr tNa?M?I W-6000
d r Z
C-_
O
J0
"l
m

J ``fir `!, tl
t
r
im

o.2."
-R C(
L J

a ?

•
A -"n
?
r'°I?° m
Z Z
m

a
X Cl)
m
4~1ef °o
°° ` 00
MIR)
/ `? `!. ?? j o ?-.. ,? ••..-ice
T7 71.

•h•Q-i
iry
,o, i r
?j=j?'`?Y ? H a r
7 ;h r

'y 00
-Fn 1

i
'q 7
_th O
47
tO
w
IV "d
a
CO)
TO
S
0000
so
d
d
r
F?
A

CV
P
N ?
R

06/23/05 09:27 FAX [phone]
WITHERS & RAVENEL
Q 002
WITHERS & RAVENEL
EN01NEERS I PLANNERS 1 SURVE` OR'
March 9, 2005
Mr. Eric Lamb
Public Works Department
City of Raleigh
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
Mr. Paul Kallam
Public Works Department
City of Raleigh
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Cedar Grove at Wakefield Plantation
W&R #203218
Gentlemen,
On behalf on my client, Wakefield Development Company, we are requesting
approval from the City to amend our original subdivision plan for Cedar Grove at
Wakefield Plantation. Our original approval had street R002 extending across a
designated wetland channel. Due to various reasons I will explain in further detail
in the proceeding paragraphs, we would like the City's approval to cul-de-sac each
end of street R002 as it approaches the wetland channel. Please see the plan that
I have enclosed with this letter that shows the new street and lot configuration we
propose.
Over the last 3-4 months, we have met on several occasions with you and several
other key staff members to discuss the difficulties we have encountered in
crossing the wetland channel with the connecting road. As you are aware, we are
required to span the wetland channel with a bridge or bottomless culvert in order
to avoid disturbance of the wetlands, We do not have the ability to seek an
individual wetland impact permit with the USACE, due to the fact that the
residential portion of Wakefield will lose it's "grandfathering" of the Neuse River
Riparian Buffers if we seek a permit to fill, Our geotechnical engineer has made
additional borings and geotechnical investigations at the site of the bottomless
culvert, and has concluded that there is not sufficient bed rock in the immediate
vicinity to support a pile-foundation support system for this bridge. As you are
aware, it the City requirement that these types of structures be supported on bed
rock, Please see the enclosed geotechnical report prepared by Terratech, with a
complete boring log.
We have investigated the possibility of providing a connecting road that would not
have to span the wetland channel. Our investigation concludes that there are no
feasible routes to provide a connecting road without impacting the golf course
111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina z7511 tel:g19.469.3340 fax:9i9.467.6008 WWW.Withersravenel_com
06/23/05 09:27 FAX [phone]
WITHERS & RAVENEL
[a 003
owned by the PGA. As we have shared with you in subsequent meetings, a
conservation easement has been recorded on the golf course property that
prohibits any infrastructure type construction on their property. We investigated
the possibility of extending a road in one specific area immediately north of the
furthest extent of the wetland channel. Our analysis concluded that a small
amount of right-of-way and grading easement would extend into the PGA property.
The impact to the golf course would not be practical or allowable due to the
conservation easement,
It Is our understanding that the maximum length of a dead end street based on city
standards is 800 feet. The cul-de-sac length of our new plan measured from the
furthest most single point of entry (at street R004) is approximately 1,800 feet.
Our plan does have a circular roadway system internally that will provide beneficial
circulation in the area. To soften the effects or provide some sense of mitigation of
the long cul-de-sac length, we have come up with a plan that offers the following:
1. The first 500 feet of street R002 extending from street R004 to the
intersection of street R003 will be a median divided roadway. Each travel
direction on the divided roadway will be of sufficient width (24 feet) to
accommodate residents, as well as, emergency vehicles. In the unlikely
event of a vehicle breakdown or some other lane blockage in either
direction of travel, there will be an opportunity to continue getting vehicles in
and out of the area by using the other travel lane, This scenario would
reduce the cul-de-sac length to approximately 1,300 feet.
2. Wakefield has made a decision to reduce the number of lots in this phase of
the development by 10 units. The original subdivision plan would have 82
lots in this phase of the development. The new plan reduces the number of
lots to 72.
There are several existing subdivisions within Wakefield where the cul-de-sac
length exceeds the City's maximum. These subdivisions include Club Villas,
Carrington, Savannah, and Dunleith just to name a few. It is our understanding
that these already developed examples operate without detriment to public travel,
safety, or service deliveries.
We understand that you will discuss this proposal with Carl Dawson and other
members of the city staff. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of our
request, and we eagerly await your answer. If I or the Wakefield Development
team can provide you with any additional information, please do not hesitate to call
us.
Sincerely,
Jerry J. Jensen, P.E.
Project Manager
cc: Wakefield Development Company
%u MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511 tel:9l9.469.3340 faxe929.467.6oos www.withersravenel.com
06/23/05
WITHERS & RAVENEL
CITY PAL TRANSP
09:27 FAX [phone]
-V J,,,
Krallarn, Paui
From-' KaJlam, Paul
Seat: Friday, March 11, 2005 2;02 PM
To: 'Jerry Jensen'
Cc: Lamb, Eric; Dawson, Carl; Thompson, David: Kelly,
Subject; Cedar Grove Wakefield Plantation
Jerry,
0004
PAGE 02
page 1 of 1
Carl, Eric, and I M6t to discuss the crossing associated with Ceda
Is important to the public and ttiemfore we can not support the varl nceortheo erly long cu! d sav. If youldo
not choose to go to Planning Commission, then you will need tap vide us some type of connection whether it is
a different type of footing design, bridge, etc.
Paul
3/14/2005
A??Fo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
:/?N I6 FD
?1%thers coos
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RaIle''e/
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 13, 2005
COUNTY: Wake
SUBJECT: Request for Access to Old NC 98 (SR 1967)
Cedar Grove Subdivision
Mr. Jerry Jensen, P.E.
Withers & Ravanel
111 MacKenan Drive
Cary, N.C. 27511
Dear Mr. Jensen,
This office has completed a review of the preliminary plans received on April 14, 2005 for the
proposed driveway access onto Old NC 98 (SR 1967) for Cedar Grove Subdivision. Due to the
requested driveway's location within the limits of T.I.P. R-2809A and it's effect on the function and
safety of the future NC 98 Bypass/Realigned Falls of Neuse Road intersection, the Department of
Transportation will not allow any driveway attachment to Old NC 98 for this development. Access to
Falls of Neuse Road and US 1 for this subdivision already exist via internal roadways located within
Wakefield Development.
An illegal driveway attachment has already been made to Old NC 98 (SR 1967) and is being used as a
construction entrance at this time. The developer must apply for a Temporary Driveway Access Permit
for this attachment to Old NC 98 (SR 1967) or the driveway connection will be removed. Contact
Reid Elmore, Assistant District Engineer, at [phone] concerning the application process for a
Temporary Driveway Access Permit.
Should you need any further assistance with this matter please contact Reid Elmore at (919) 733-
3213.
Sincerely,
2 Brando . Jones, P.E.
District Engineer
BHJ/TRE
cc. Jon G. Nance, P.E., Division Engineer
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] DISTRICT DRIVE
DOH DISTRICT1
1575 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.Naus RALEIGH NC 27607
RALEIGH NC 27699-1575
11/08/2005 17:01 9198903786 TRANSPORTATION PAGE 02
COPY
<<%Y??, ?( J? vlf?iy?Cr
November 1, 2005
Mr. Kevin C. Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Subject Neuse River Buffer Impacts - Cedar Grove Subdivision, Wakefield
Dear Mr. Martin:
This lett(-.-r is in response to a request for justification of stream impacts concerning a
portion of the Wakefield development (Cedar Grove Subdivision, Phase 3, 5-97-03). An updated
preliminary plan for this property was approved by the City of Raleigh in March 2004. The plan
as presented confor= to City Code requirements for access points, street spacing, and Neuse
River buffer preservation.
The City's street standards have two requirements that frequently create environmental
conflicts: l) a street spacing standard of 1,500 feet; and 2) a ma?dxnurn dead-end street length of
800 feet. We frequently work within these requirements to avoid and minimize environmental
impacts whenever possible. 't'hese street requirements originated as a function of traffic flow as a
means of establishing a desirable grid of streets to support an urban development pattern. Lately
these standards have become more stringently applied as a function of fire safety and the City's
compliance with the International Fire Code. Accessibility for emergency response vehicles
becomes critical during major events, as has been borne out locally during previous storms and
hurricanes in our area. A street system with redundancy for points of access is critical within an
urban area for these reasons.
We are committed to looking for options to meet the avoidance and minimization needs
of the environmental system, whether that means changing the location, frequency, or design of
the crossings. Many impacts have been avoided with recent site plan and subdivision approvals
as a result of being proactive in avoiding environmental impacts.
If you need any other information, please give me a call at [phone] or email me at
eric.lanmb®ci.raleigh.nc.us.
Sincerely,
Eric J. Lamb, PE
Manager, Transportation Services Division
Cc: Mr. Mitchell Silver, AICP - Planning Director
Mr. Carl R. Dawson, Jr., PE - Public Works Director
Mr. John Myers - Wakefield Development Corp.
OFFICES • 222 WFST HARGLTT STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 590 • RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27602
RECYCLED PAPER
WITHERS 2*3 RAVENEL
ENGINEERS 1 PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
October 3, 2005
Mr. Kevin Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Re: Cedar Grove at Wakefield Plantation
W&R #203218
Dear Kevin,

iJ L1
E;: SO!I ! t'iul :"titiid! Ccuj P u.,ts, PA
In March of 2005, Wakefield Development Company pursued a variance request from the
City of Raleigh to relieve them the requirement by the City to extend a connecting road
from phase 1 to phase 3 in the Cedar Grove residential subdivision. The connecting road
will span a wetland channel that will obviously result in impacts to the wetland channel.
The City is requiring the extension of the connecting road based on their Subdivision
Code of Ordinances that state... "code section 10-3041 ... the design and construction of
public and private streets and sidewalks, driveway access points, and rights-of-way
requirements shall be in accordance with the standards and requirements in the Street,
Sidewalk, and Driveway Access Handbook..." On page 13 of the Street, Sidewalk,
and Driveway Access Handbook, it states... "that the maximum dead-end street length
serving residential dwelling units shall not exceed eight hundred (800) linear feet." Copies
of both of these ordinances and regulations are attached to this letter.
In March 2005, Wakefield Development Company asked the City to allow the termination
of roadway prior to crossing the wetland channel and avoid its impact. The resulting
dead-end street length in Cedar Grove, phase 3 would be approximately 2,400 feet. We
offered an option that would reduce the dead-end length to approximately 1,800 feet, but
since these distances exceed the maximum dead-end length allowed by their regulations,
they could not support our variance request. No other viable options are available to
comply with the maximum dead-end length. Copies of this request letter that was sent to
the City and their response are attached to this letter.
Unfortunately, without the City's permission to terminate the roadway prior to the wetland
channel crossing, we are required by City Code to extend the roadway and connect it to
another street on the other side of the wetland channel.
Please call me if you have any questions or if you need further clarification. Thanks.
Jerry J. Jensen, P.E.
Project Manager
111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511 tel:[phone] fax:[phone]
www.withersravenel.com
2/02 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT § 10-3051
proved by the Chief Engineer within each subdivision
whenever any portion of any lot in the subdivision lies
within a floodprone area as defined in Part 10, chapter
4. The elevation and a description of the location of the
reference mark shall be indicated on plats required
under this chapter, which contain lot(s) in floodprone
areas.
(Code 1959, §20-18; Ord. No. 1978-871-TC-87, §§2,3,8-15- 78; Ord. No.
1978-872-TC-88, §24, TC-119, 8-15-78)
Cross reference: Central Engineering Department, Part 6, Chapter
State law reference: Plats and subdivisions, mapping requirements,
G.S. 47-30, as amended.
Secs. 10-3035-10-3040.
RESERVED.
Sec. 10-3041.
STREET DESIGN STANDARDS.
(2) A recombination of lots which may either increase
the number of potential; access points along a
thoroughfare needed for the lots being recom-
bined or render existing access points noncon-
forming regarding the standards in the Street,
Sidewalk and Driveway Access Handbook is a
violation of this chapter and is impermissible
unless an appropriate legal instrument is recorded
indicating that the potential number of access
points before and after the recombination cannot
be any greater than prior to the recombination. If
a recombined lot which previously had no public
street access can only gain access onto a street in
violation of the standards of the Street, Sidewalk
and Driveway Access Handbook, then this re-
combination may be allowed if the access meets
the standards to the extent feasibly possible.
(Ord. No. 1983-153-TC-190, § 13, TC-233, 7-19-83; Ord. No. 1986-799-
TC-267, §48, TC-21-85, 6-3-86; Ord. No. 1986-847-TC- 273, §7, TC-16-
86, 9-2-86; Ord. No. 1987-31-TC-296, §§61-63, TC-16-87, 12-1-87; Ord.
No. 1991-87913-TC-385, §15, TC-1213-91, I1-19-91; Ord. No. 1999-647-
TC-185, §3, TC-7-99, 10-6-99)
The design and construction of public and private streets
and sidewalks, driveway access points, and rights-of-way
requirements shall be in accordance with the standards and
requirements in the Street, Sidewalk, and Driveway Ac-
cess Handbook as amended, on file in the City Clerk's
office.
Policy reference: Variance for Street Improvements in Rural Areas,
Standard Procedure 900-9.
Sec. 10-3042.
ACCESS POINTS.
(a) For any development, the number of access points may
be restricted where it is necessary for purposes of
decreasing traffic congestion or hazards, and shall be
in accordance with the Street, Sidewalk and Drive-
way Access Handbook on file in the City Clerk's
Office. In the case of multiple lot developments or
when the adjoining property is under the same owner-
ship, these restrictions may include required recorded
common access point declarations. When adjoining
properties are owned by different persons, recorded
offers of cross access easements may be required.
(b) All land which adjoins a thoroughfare shall be subject
to the following regulations:
(1) If access to a lot adjoining a thoroughfare is to be
from a public street other than a thoroughfare,
such access shall be stated or shown on the
recorded plat. If the access is onto a thoroughfare,
the location that meets the standards of this Code
may be required to be shown on the recorded plat.
Secs. 10-3043-10-3050.
RESERVED.
Sec. 10-3051.
SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE.
(a) Connection to sanitary sewer prohibited.
No surface water drainage shall empty into a sanitary
sewer.
(b) Piping of watercourses.
This subsection applies to all storm drainage piping of
watercourses except those crossing public or private
.streets: See §10-3053(c), Streets in Floodprone Areas.
All natural watercourses shall remain open and unal-
tered unless piping, enclosing or altering is requested
and justified by the developer and/or required by the
Chief Engineer, but then only when the following
conditions are met:
(1) The developer shall connect the development pipe
system to an existing public or private pipe storm
drainage system when such system, in the opinion
of the Chief Engineer, is reasonably accessible.
The developer shall do all grading and provide all
structures necessary to properly connect to the
existing storm drainage system;
(2) All design and construction shall be done accord-
ing to City ,standards;
10/3-27

Thoroughfare Improvements
Complete thoroughfare improvements, in conformance with the minimum roadway design cross-
sections illustrated in Section 4.1, shall be made by developments along the entire length of a
thoroughfare system roadway, if any of the following three conditions exist:
1) A development is located within 400 feet of an existing or proposed intersection of either two
(2) thoroughfare system roadways or a thoroughfare system roadway and a collector street
system roadway, and the improvement can be utilized by motorists as a travel lane or
turning lane to improve vehicle delay, congestion or safety.
2) The predicted vehicle trips generated by a development during peak travel periods,
combined with the background traffic volume traveling on the thoroughfare system
roadway(s), would reduce the roadway or nearby intersections' capacity below Level-0f--
Service 'D', as defined in the Hiehwail Capacitu Manual, 1994, and the improvement can be
utilized by motorists as a travel lane or turning lane to improve vehicle delay, congestion or
safety.
3) The improvement would be an extension of an already existing widened section of roadway,
and the improvement can be utilized by motorists as a travel lane or turning lane to improve
vehicle delay, congestion or safety.
Partial thoroughfare improvements, in conformance with the minimum paving construction
standards and additional pavement surfaces to accommodate turning movements will be required in
the event complete thoroughfare improvements are not required as conditioned in the preceding
paragraph.
Dead-End Streets
Dead-end streets should be limited in use, serving residential and non-residential land uses that are
expected to generate low traffic volumes. Unless an equally safe and convenient form of turning
space is provided, dead-end streets shall terminate in a circular cul-de-sac. Dead-end streets shall
conform to the design cross-sections shown in Section 4.2.
The maximum dead-end street length serving residential dwelling units shall not exceed eight
hundred (800) linear feet. The maximum dead-end street length serving non-residential uses shall
not exceed four hundred (400) linear feet. The dead-end street length is measured from the center line
of the intersecting street to the center of the circular cul-de-sac right-of-way. In cases where there is no
cul-de-sac, the length shall be measured to the farthest point along the dead-end street from the
intersecting street.
The Transportation Director may approve extra-long dead-end streets of up to 10% above the
800-foot (residential) and 4004oot (nonresidential) standards if a finding is made that there is no
practical through extension possible due to severe topography or other physical features, or due to
existing surrounding development.
13
WITHERS &- RAVENEL
ENGINEERS 1 PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
March 9, 2005
Mr. Eric Lamb
Public Works Department
City of Raleigh
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
Mr. Paul Kallam
Public Works Department
City of Raleigh
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Cedar Grove at Wakefield Plantation
W&R #203218
Gentlemen,
On behalf on my client, Wakefield Development Company, we are requesting
approval from the City to amend our original subdivision plan for Cedar Grove at
Wakefield Plantation. Our original approval had street R002 extending across a
designated wetland channel. Due to various reasons I will explain in further detail
in the proceeding paragraphs, we would like the City's approval to cul-de-sac each
end of street R002 as it approaches the wetland channel. Please see the plan that
I have enclosed with this letter that shows the new street and lot configuration we
propose.
Over the last 3-4 months, we have met on several occasions with you and several
other key staff members to discuss the difficulties we have encountered in
crossing the wetland channel with the connecting road. As you are aware, we are
required to span the wetland channel with a bridge or bottomless culvert in order
to avoid disturbance of the wetlands. We do not have the ability to seek an
individual wetland impact permit with the USACE, due to the fact that the
residential portion of Wakefield will lose it's "g randfathe ring" of the Neuse River
Riparian Buffers if we seek a permit to fill. Our geotechnical engineer has made
additional borings and geotechnical investigations at the site of the bottomless
culvert, and has concluded that there is not sufficient bed rock in the immediate
vicinity to support a pile-foundation support system for this bridge. As you are
aware, it the City requirement that these types of structures be supported on bed
rock. Please see the enclosed geotechnical report prepared by Terratech, with a
complete boring log.
We have investigated the possibility of providing a connecting road that would not
have to span the wetland channel. Our investigation concludes that there are no
feasible routes to provide a connecting road without impacting the golf course
iii MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511 tel:[phone] fax:[phone]oo8 www.withersravenet.com
owned by the PGA. As we have shared with you in subsequent meetings, a
conservation easement has been recorded on the golf course property that
prohibits any infrastructure type construction on their property. We investigated
the possibility of extending a road in one specific area immediately north of the
furthest extent of the wetland channel. Our analysis concluded that a small
amount of right-of-way and grading easement would extend into the PGA property.
The impact to the golf course would not be practical or allowable due to the
conservation easement.
It is our understanding that the maximum length of a dead end street based on city
standards is 800 feet. The cul-de-sac length of our new plan measured from the
furthest most single point of entry (at street R004) is approximately 1,800 feet.
Our plan does have a circular roadway system internally that will provide beneficial
circulation in the area. To soften the effects or provide some sense of mitigation of
the long cul-de-sac length, we have come up with a plan that offers the following:
1. The first 500 feet of street R002 extending from street R004 to the
intersection of street R003 will be a median divided roadway. Each travel
direction on the divided roadway will be of sufficient width (24 feet) to
accommodate residents, as well as, emergency vehicles. In the unlikely
event of a vehicle breakdown or some other lane blockage in either
direction of travel, there will be an opportunity to continue getting vehicles in
and out of the area by using the other travel lane. This scenario would
reduce the cul-de-sac length to approximately 1,300 feet.
2. Wakefield has made a decision to reduce the number of lots in this phase of
the development by 10 units. The original subdivision plan would have 82
lots in this phase of the development. The new plan reduces the number of
lots to 72.
There are several existing subdivisions within Wakefield where the cul-de-sac
length exceeds the City's maximum. These subdivisions include Club Villas,
Carrington, Savannah, and Dunleith just to name a few. It is our understanding
that these already developed examples operate without detriment to public travel,
safety, or service deliveries.
We understand that you will discuss this proposal with Carl Dawson and other
members of the city staff. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of our
request, and we eagerly await your answer. If I or the Wakefield Development
team can provide you with any additional information, please do not hesitate to call
us.
Sincerely,
-ttt ?_e.,n?
Jerry J. Jensen, P.E.
Project Manager
cc: Wakefield Development Company
111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511 tel:[phone] fax:[phone]oo8 www.withersravenel.com
L41 L190::) Fly: 12
919-890-3727
CITY RAL TRANSP
Kallam, Paul
From: Kallam, Paul
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 2;02 PM
To. 'Jerry Jensen'
Cc: Lamb, Eric; Dawson, Carl; Thompson, David; Kelly,
Subject: Cedar Grove Wakefield Plantation
Jerry,
PAGE 02
Page 1 of 1
Carl, Eric, and I met to discuss the crossing associated with Ceda Grove at Wakefield. We feel the connectivity
is important to the public and therefore we can not support the vari nce for the overly long cul-de-sac. If you do
not choose to go to Planning Commission, then you will need to pr vide us some type of connection whether it is
a different type of footing design, bridge, etc.
Paul
3/14/2005
Cedar Grove at Wakefield Plantation, Phase 3
Calculation of Impervious Surface Area Percentage
Impervious Surface Areas
Public Street Paving Area 87,048 s.f.
Public Sidewalk Paving Area 15,499 s.f.
House Footprint Area (Avg. 1,900 sq.ft. per dwelling) 157,700 s.f.
House Sidewalk Area (Avg. 150 sq.ft. per dwelling) 12,450 s.f.
House Driveway Apron Area (Avg. 400 sq.ft. per dwelling) 33,200 s.f.
Total Estimated Impervious Surface Area = 305,897 s.f.
7.02 ac.
Common Open Space 10.13 ac.
Total Grass Areas 11.90 ac.
Impervious Surface Areas 7.02 ac.
Total Tract Area = 29.05 ac.
Impervious Surface Area Percentage = 24%
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: '- \ Project: Latitude:
Evaluator r Site: Longitude:
Total Points: ? 9 Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: ?AV Q
if Z 19 or perennial if 2:30 e.g. Quad Name:
1
A. Geomorphology Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 -- 1 2 3
9' Natural levees co 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 ` 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 cv- > 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 C l-)
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No ?0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Hvdrnlnnv tSuhtntal = p"k j / 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 ? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 ? 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 G 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes =1.5'S

20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 -- 2 + 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 1 1.5
23. Bivalves V 1 2 3
24. Fish ' 0 J 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriatfungus. 0 ` 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
' Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) j
i ..... .......... .... ...._............................................. ........ _...................... ...... _....... -....... .... _..... ................ _._...._..._................... _..................................... _................. -........... _...... ...... _.._.............. _.... ......._......._....._.._.._.__..._.... _..... __............... ...._...... ........ _......... ..._........_.._...........
_..
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following informl ation for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: reY l C ?t 11 2. Evaluator's name: 1\ ?'' p ?`a (' 1
3. Date of evaluation: C? 4. Time of evaluation: 4,3
5. Name of stream: l l'? 1Z G v- a 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: ? 0
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
8. Stream order: t S
10. County: uoa 16 0-
12. Subdivision name (if any): l,(i at
Longitude (ex. -77.556611
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other w` C .? - 1 a e% mac' ?Z
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
a -e
14. Proposed channel work (if any):.
15. Recent weather conditions:
cJ G (_fS t`?` 9
(
16. Site conditions at time of visit: c ?-?- - F ( - ,? ` -t
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed.--IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? nE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? E NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 10 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
l r?
?% Forested 0% Cleared / Logged 0 % Other ( ?;, l )
22. Bankfull width: ?# t 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): (9 t t
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 40/0 ? Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends .Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature / `"h `sue l "-- Date N 1- 17 ( "-a
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
CD
0
L-
C)
O
?L
V
L
U
LO
O
O
N
Lf)
N
T-
-:? cos stem
PROGRAM
December 12, 2005
Kevin Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Project: Cedar Grove at Wakefield
County: Wake
D
R E C E I V E
DEC 15 2005
By: Soil S Eminnmental Consultants. PA
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NC EEP) is willing to
accept payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that
the payment will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the .
applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NC EEP will be approved.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. If we have not received a copy of the issued 404
Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send
copies of the 404/401/CAMA permits to NC EEP. Once NC EEP receives a copy of the 404 Permit and/or the 401
Certification an invoice will be issued and payment must be made.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the
following table.
River Basin Wetlands Stream Buffer Buffer
Cataloging (Acres) (Linear Feet) Zone 1 Zone 2
Unit (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.)
Riparian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh Cold Cool Warm
Neuse 0 0 0 0 0 188 0 0
03020201
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation for the permitted impacts
up to a 2:1 ratio, (buffers, Zone 1 at a 3:1 ratio and Zone 2 at a 1.5:1 ratio). The type and amount of the compensatory
mitigation will be as specified in the Section 404 Permit and/or 401 Water Quality Certification, and/or CAMA Permit. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N. C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at [phone].
Sincerely, pp
W ' m D. Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Monte Matthews, USACE - Raleigh
Eric Kulz, DWQ Regional Office - Raleigh
File
Kato ur r?t?... 1: ' ... Protectu-t9 Our Ra t& ©??
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
LL-
J
DO
DO
W
Z
U
z
Q_
/w LL1 _ _ -5?- '
° U I\ CL- > - - -
I W W \
z-w
02
0 8L
1 ° w
t
L-Li
LLl \ \
\\ Z ?L.Lj
I LLj cj? > /- 1
` P I
o
N
J
W
° Z?
o?
W W .?
?'V.O ' yL n
N
Q ^
Q' „
Q ?oc za
o cn z
J z
IX w, ;6
z CL W ?
Q? WW=
?!
11 '\ I ? / / r
`? \ \\ \\ ??I I II I 1 // //OI/•
g
W
M
W
LLI
Ljl<
`\ \\\\\ 11 QI W
a
e
'S
t '
2
Environmental
Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • J
www.SandEC.com
Consultants, PA
,bone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
December 20, 2005
S&EC Project # 3037.W0
To: US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Monte Mathews
6508 Falls of the Neuse Rd
Suite 120
Raleigh, N.C. 27615
From: Kevin Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614

- ?)

Re: Cedar Grove at Wakefield
L ?
Raleigh, Wake County, NC E+ y
USACE Action ID #200620190
On behalf of the owners, Sandler at Wakefield LLC (Attn: Randy Smith), please find attached a complete application and
supplemental information requesting written concurrence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC-DWQ) that the activities proposed below may precede utilizing an Individual Permit. In
addition, written authorization from the NC-DWQ is requested for an Associated Water Quality Certification. Please contact me
at [phone] if you have any questions or require additional information.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Name Cedar Grove at Wakefield
Project Type Residential Subdivision
Owner / Applicant Sandler at Wakefield LLC
County Wake
Nearest Town Raleigh
Waterbod Name UT Richland Creek
Basin / Sub-basin 03020201
Index Number 27-21-(1.5)
Class WS IV
IMPACT SUMMARY

Stream Impact (acres): 0.01
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.01
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 188
Attachments:
Eng Form 4345
Pre-construction Notification (PCN) Application Form
Agent Authorization
USGS Vicinity Map
Detailed Impact Maps and Overall Site Plan Maps
DWQ & USACE Stream ID form plus pictures
5475 Water Quality Certification Fee
NCEEP Acceptance Letter
NC Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit
Attn: Cyndi Karoly
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Adjacent Property Owners
Other Approvals
3/9/05 Letter to the City of Raleigh
3/11/05 E-mail from the City of Raleigh
6/13/05 NC-DOT Letter
11/01/05 City of Raleigh
10/03/05 Withers & Ravenel Letter
Impervious Calculations
Charlotte Office: Greensboro Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C 3817-E Lawndale Drive
Concord, NC 28025 Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT f vr 3 I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
(33 CFR 3251 Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directories of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite
1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302= and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503.
Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction
over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws required permits authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable
waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the
purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this from will be used in evaluating the application for a permit.
Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor
can a permit be issues.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS I THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPSI
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANTI
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Sandler at Wakefield, LLC
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
3209 Gresham Lake Road, Suite 160, Raleigh, NC 27615 11010 Raven Ridge Road, Raleigh, NC 27614
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 919-556-4310 b. Business 919-846-5900
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, Soil & Environmental Consultants PA to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon
request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
(See attached authorization)
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Cedar Grove at Wakefield
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (i)app)icab)e) UTorRichlandCreek 1 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (itapp)icable)
15. LOCATION OF THE PROJECT
N I N/A
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, (see instructions)
See attached USGS Topo Vicinity Map
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
South of proposed Hwy 98 Bypass, East of Falls of the Neuse Road, West of Wakefield Plantation Blvd.
ENG. FORM 4345, Feb 94 EDITION OF SEPT 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
18. Nature of Activity /Description of project, include aft features/
Construction of internal subdivision road consisting of one crossing of a stream.
19. Project Purpose /Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions/
To allow development of uplands for a residential subdivision that meets City of Raleigh requirements (See attached 11 /1 /05 letter from the City of
Raleigh and 10/3/05 and 3/8/05 letters by the project engineer Withers & Ravenel).
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
To construct an internal subdivision road, specifically a crossing of a first order perennial stream.
21. Type(s) of material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Native soils acquired on-site, 300 cubic yards below mean high water, 4500 cubic yards total to construct crossing.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions!
0.01 acres (188 linear feet) of perennial stream.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No X IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
See attached list.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
See attached list.
* Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits.
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly
authorized agent of the applicant.
c &t-GYI., klat I aiu la ? av 105
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT
DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized
agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly
and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or
representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry,
shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(it any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1.
II.
Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Individual
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal M'-anagement Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details); check'here: ? "' ' =' a
Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Li ! 20J5
' r is '!iY
??-1? .., r.. D ?.. fi
Name: Sandler at Wakefield LLC
Mailing Address: Attn: Randy Smith
3209 Gresham Lake Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone Number: 919-556-4310 Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Kevin Martin
Company Affiliation:S&EC, PA
Mailing Address: 11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Telephone Number: 919-846-5900 Fax Number: 919-846-9467
E-mail Address: kmartinna.sandec.com
Pagel of 9
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Cedar Grove at Wakefield
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Raleigh
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Wakefield
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): East of Falls of the Neuse
Road, South of the proposed Hwy 98 Bypass, and West of Wakefield Plantation Drive.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.9660 ON 78.5552 °W
6. Property size (acres): 1900 in entire project, 1300 within residential tracts
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: UT of Richland Creek
8. River Basin: Neuse
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application:_ Residential or undeveloped land, some recreational lands
(golf course)
Page 2 of 9
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Construction of a phase of a residential subdivision using typical grading equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Comply with City of Raleigh requirements
regarding internal subdivision roads which require one stream crossing for this phase
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. Wetlands were delineated by another consultant and confirmed by Eric
Alsmeyer of the Corps on 4/17/97. Several nationwide permits have been issued including,
199602047, 1999821238, 199821239, and 200120770. DWQ #961148. The project was
previously determined to have "vested rights" and is not subject to the Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Rules. Cumulative permitted project impacts to date are NW 26 (0.643 ac NW 14
(0.304 , NW 13 (0.098), NW 39 (0.329)=1.374 ac.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No additional impacts are anticipated.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
Page 3 of 9
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: One perpendicular crossing of
a stream for an internal subdivision road. See attached Sheet 1 "Wetland Impact Map" and
Overall Site Plan for this phase of the project by Withers & Ravenel.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
es/no Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: Unknown >10
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multi 1 length X width, then divide b 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
indicate on ma
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
linear feet Area of
Impact
acres
1 UT of Richland Creek Fill/Culvert Perennial 2' 188' 0.01

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 180' 0.01
Page 4 of 9
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, floodin , drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc. Area of
Impact
acres

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project.
Stream Im act (acres): 0.01
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. acres 0.01
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 188'
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. The clients attempted to avoid
Page 5 of 9
this crossing by cul-de-sacing the road on each side or by installing a bottomless culvert (see
attached 3/19/05 letter from Withers & Ravenel). The City denied the request to cul-de-sac the
roads (see attached 3/11/05 e-mail). The client also requested a connection to Falls of the Neuse
Road from DOT which would meet the City's requirements but that request was denied (see the
6/13/05 letter from DOT).
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands/strmizide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The client proposes payment to NCEEP at a 1:1 ratio. Since every possible attempt to
avoid the impact within our clients control has been made.
Page 6 of 9
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 188'
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ? No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify. )? Yes ? No ® Project is vested.
Page 7 of 9
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 N/A 3 (2 for Catawba) N/A
2 N/A 1.5 N/A
Total N/A N/A
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 213 .0242 or.0244, or.0260. None required.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. The proposed project will have 24% impervious
surface (calculations attached). Therefore DWQ stormwater treatment is not reauired. The
project is not subject to the Neuse Buffer rules so diffuse flow demonstration is not required.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Municipal
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (I 5A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
Page 8 of 9
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http:/ih2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
U
Applican gents Signature Date
(Agent's signature-valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
12-19-`05 17:45 FROM- 9195564310 T-462 P002/002 F-453
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
All Blanks To Be Filled In By The Current Landowner
Name: Sandler at Wakefield, LLC
Address: 3209 Gresham Lake road, Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27615,
Phone: [phone]
Project Name /Description: -Cedar Grove at Wakefield- S&EC Project #3037.WO
Date: 12/08/05
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Attn: _ Monte Matthews
Field Office: Raleigh
Re: Wetlands Related Consulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
I, the current ro er owner, hereby designate and authorize Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA to
act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon request
supplemental information in support of applications, etc. from this day forward. The -8th day of
-December, 2005
This notification supersedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
NOTICE: This authorization, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only for
government officials to enter the property when accompanied by S&EC staff. You should call S&EC
to arrange a site meeting prior to visiting the site.
Print Pro, rty Owner's Name
Property Owner's Signature
cc: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NCDENR - DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
cc: Mr. Kevin Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA

Property Owner Owner's Mailing Address Property Location Address
CALLOWAY ON THE GREEN C/O CENTEX HOMES 3051 FALLS OF NEUSE RD
TOWNHOMES 3739 NATIONAL DR STE 101 WAKE FOREST NC 27587-0000
ASSOC INCCIO CENTEX HOMES RALEIGH NC 27612-4844
Administratve Data Transfer Information Assessed Value
Old Map # 215-
Map/Scale 1830 01 Deed Date 12/512001 Land Value Assessed $78,544
VCS 19RA900 Book & Page 09195 0397 Bldg. Value Assessed
City RALEIGH Revenue Stamps
Fire District Pkg Sale Date Tobacco Pounds
Township WAKE FOREST Pkg Sale Price Tobacco Value
Land Class HASSOC Land Sale Date
ETJ RA Land Sale Price Land Use Value
Spec Dist(s) Use Value Deferment
Zoning R-6 Improvement Summary Historic Deferment
History ID 1 Total Deferred Value
History ID 2 Total Units 0
Acreage 1.36 Recycle Units 0
Permit Date AptISC Sqft Use/Hist Assessed
Permit # Heated Area otal Value Assessed $78,544
Property Owner Owner's Mailing Address Property Location Address
WAKEFIELD GLEN L LC C/O CROSLAND GROUP INC 2411 GARDEN HILL DR
C/0 CROSLAND GROUP INC 227 W TRADE ST STE 900 RALEIGH NC 27614-0896
CHARLOTTE NC 28202-1675
Administratve Data ransfer information Assessed Value
Oki Map # 215-00000-0000
Map/Scale 1830 01 Deed Date . 313011999 Land Value Assessed $1,968,000
VCS ANCRA01 Book & Page 08280 0866 Bldg. Value Assessed $17,438,263
City RALEIGH Revenue Stamps
Fire District Pkg Sale Date Tobacco Pounds
Township WAKE FOREST Pkg Sale Price Tobacco Value
Land Class APRTMENT Land Sale Date 611511998
ETJ RA Land Sale Price $2,108,000 Land Use Value
Spec Dist(s) Use Value Deferment
Zoning R-6 Improvement Summary Historic Deferment
History ID 1 Total Deferred Value
History ID 2 Total Units 246
Acreage 22.55 Recycle Units 246
Permit Date f/SC Sqft 221,964 Use/Hist Assessed
Permit # Heated Area 286,520 Total Value Assessed $19,406,263
Property Owner
CAROLINA PRINCESS LLC Owner's Mailing Address
1034 JONES WYND
WAKE FOREST NC 27587-7381 Property Location Address
2724 OLD NC 98 HWY
WAKE FOREST NC 27587-0000
ministratve Data Transfer Information Assessed Value
l Map # 216-00000-0105
p/Scale 1830 01 Deed Date 1214/2000 Land Value Assessed $107,810
S CBWO001 Book & Page 08748 2595 Bldg. Value Assessed
[ Revenue Stamps 1000.00
e District 23 Pkg Sale Date Tobacco Pounds
wnship WAKE FOREST Pkg Sale Price Tobacco Value
d Class VACANT Land Sale Date 121412000
J
ET WC Land Sale Price $500,000 Land Use Value
Spec Dist(s) Use Value Deferment
Zoning R-30 Improvement Summary Historic Deferment
History ID 1 Total Deferred Value
History ID 2 Total Units 0
Acreage 4.95 Recycle Units 0
Permit Date ApVSC Sqft Use/Hist Assessed
Permit # Heated Area Total Value Assessed $107,810
Property Owner
TOURNAMENT PLAYERS CLUB OF
RAL LLC
C/O PGA TOUR GOLF COURSE PROP
INC Owners Mailing Address
C/O PGA TOUR GOLF COURSE PROP
INC
100 PGA TOUR BLVD
PONTE VEDRA BEACH FL 32082-3046 Property Location Address
3330 WAKEFIELD PLANTATION DR
WAKE FOREST NC 27587-0000
Administratve Data Transfer Information Assessed Value
Old Map # 215-00000-0000
Map/Scale 1830 01 Deed Date 3126/2002 Land Value Assessed $150,150
VCS FNRA001 Book & Page 09349 0010 Bldg. Value Assessed $793,602
City RALEIGH Revenue Stamps 1757.00
Fire District Pkg Sale Date Tobacco Pounds
Township WAKE FOREST Pkg Sale Price Tobacco Value
Land Class COMMERCL Land Sale Date 3/26/2002
ETJ RA Land Sale Price $878,500 Land Use Value
Spec Dist(s) Use Value Deferment
Zoning R-6 Improvement Summary Historic Deferment
History ID 1 Total Deferred Value
History ID 2 Total Units 0
Acreage 10.01 Recycle Units 0
Permit Date 8/1712001 VSC Sqft Use/Hist Assessed
Permit # 0000012472 Heated Area 5,201 otal Value Assessed $943,752
r1q
I?T

Lam.
A
n
4
f
-000
h
O
1110
d1p
*14t
G
A
?;i
2S. O+ke t Te A e ra k 4'* e L oca k Apemvftls
Subdivision Approval
S-97-03
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 9/4/03
Date Approved" 2/2/04
Construction Drawing
S-97-03
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 7/1105
Date Approved: 11/14/05
Water and Sewer Permit
S-97-03
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 7/1/05
Date Approved: 11/14/05
Grading Permit
Transaction #99540
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 10/6/04
Date Approved: 11/17/04
Landscape Permit
Transaction #99333
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 10/6/04
Date Approved: 10/14/04
Stormwater Management Permit
Nitrogen Reduction
N-95-05
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 6/13/05
Date Approved: 7/1/05
Record Plat
S-97-03
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 11/30/05
Date Approved: pending
\V?
i' ,{. 13 1? / ? ??
250
F?? t
_1A I
(WQs
A?l
a
??`
?1 , i•?C
n o? ?l ? 1
J
O
O
J
?- l 0
MN f
Cry
7•
124 MILS 1'26'
25MILS
M GRID AND 1987 MAGNETIC NORTH
XCLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET
K p
SCALE 1:24 000 I n
# o -
1000 0 1000 2000 I MILE
3000 4000 5000 6000 1000 FEET
1 5 O
I KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
WAKE FOREST QUADRANGLE
NORTH CAROLINA-WAKE CO.
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
WAKEFIELD
p ve ra k 1
o
it
E
D
B
A
F

WETLAND IMPACTS
WAKEFIELD 8-98 SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. Inc.
S&EC JOB Y3037 6
Q 71. M - NAM C? Mo.(") $ -ww
O

Z dam=
r

m

xa?.
M
'ell
D
J ??Y
eve*?• _ f
? J

r
O r
Cl)
? O
v ?; °•
m
g -n
Z
°
f', ,; o
o ? Z
-I
C

4.
(t - O ~ may. ww
3: G)
G c
?_ ? ) _/ /r
•ryr? , ,
d7
dP*
#Mb
n -G
Abor of j, ? CO)
f I
C,IN
'7 Q
E
p?
R
06/23/05 09:27 FAX [phone] WITHERS & RAVENEL Q002
WITHERS fir' RAVENEL
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
March 9, 2005
Mr. Eric Lamb
Public Works Department
City of Raleigh
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
Mr. Paul Kellam
Public Works Department
City of Raleigh
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Cedar Grove at Wakefield Plantation
W&R #203218
Gentlemen,
On behalf on my client, Wakefield Development Company, we are requesting
approval from the City to amend our original subdivision plan for Cedar Grove at
Wakefield Plantation. Our original approval had street R002 extending across a
designated wetland channel. Due to various reasons I will explain in further detail
in the proceeding paragraphs, we would like the City's approval to cul-de-sac each
end of street R002 as it approaches the wetland channel. Please see the plan that
I have enclosed with this letter that shows the new street and lot configuration we
propose.
Over the last 3-4 months, we have met on several occasions with you and several
other key staff members to discuss the difficulties we have encountered in
crossing the wetland channel with the connecting road. As you are aware, we are
required to span the wetland channel with a bridge or bottomless culvert in order
to avoid disturbance of the wetlands. We do not have the ability to seek an
individual wetland impact permit with the USACE, due to the fact that the
residential portion of Wakefield will lose it's "grandfathering" of the Neuse River
Riparian Buffers if we seek a permit to fill. Our geotechnical engineer has made
additional borings and geotechnical investigations at the site of the bottomless
culvert, and has concluded that there is not sufficient bed rock in the immediate
vicinity to support a pile-foundation support system for this bridge. As you are
aware, it the City requirement that these types of structures be supported on bed
rock. Please see the enclosed geotechnical report prepared by Tenatech, with a
complete boring log,
We have investigated the possibility of providing a connecting road that would not
have to span the wetland channel. Our investigation concludes that there are no
feasible routes to provide a connecting road without impacting the golf course
111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 2751-1 te1:y19.469.334o fax:g-19.467.6ooa www.witherWavenel.com
06/23/05 09:27 FAX [phone] WITHERS & RAVENEL 1a003
owned by the PGA. As we have shared with you in subsequent meetings, a
conservation easement has been recorded on the golf course property that
prohibits any infrastructure type construction on their property. We investigated
the possibility of extending a road in one specific area immediately north of the
furthest extent of the wetland channel. Our analysis concluded that a small
amount of right-of-way and grading easement would extend into the PGA property.
The impact to the golf course would not be practical or allowable due to the
conservation easement.
It is our understanding that the maximum length of a dead end street based on city
standards is 800 feet. The cul-de-sac length of our new plan measured from the
furthest most single point of entry (at street R004) is approximately 1,800 feet.
Our plan does have a circular roadway system internally that will provide beneficial
circulation in the area. To soften the effects or provide some sense of mitigation of
the long cul-de-sac length, we have come up with a plan that offers the following:
1. The first 500 feet of street R002 extending from street R004 to the
intersection of street R003 will be a median divided roadway. Each travel
direction on the divided roadway will be of sufficient width (24 feet) to
accommodate residents, as well as, emergency vehicles, In the unlikely
event of a vehicle breakdown or some other lane blockage in either
direction of travel, there will be an opportunity to continue getting vehicles in
and out of the area by using the other travel lane. This scenario would
reduce the cul-de-sac length to approximately 1,300 feet.
2. Wakefield has made a decision to reduce the number of lots in this phase of
the development by 10 units. The original subdivision plan would have 82
lots in this phase of the development. The new plan reduces the number of
lots to 72.
There are several existing subdivisions within Wakefield where the cul-de-sac
length exceeds the City's maximum. These subdivisions include Club Villas,
Carrington, Savannah, and Dunleith just to name a few. It is our understanding
that these already developed examples operate without detriment to public travel,
safety, or service deliveries. .
We understand that you will discuss this proposal with Carl Dawson and other
members of the city staff. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of our
request, and we eagerly await your answer. If I or the Wakefield Development
team can provide you with any additional information, please do not hesitate to call
us.
Sincerely,
Jerry J. Jensen, P.E.
Project Manager
cc: Wakefield Development Company
tat MacKenan Drive Cary. North Carolina 27511 tel-919.469.3340 Fax.9a9.467.6ooEl www.withersravenet.com
06/23/05 09:27 FAX [phone] WITHERS & RAVENEL Q004
__ - " ''•" CITY PAL TRANSP
I PAGE 02
Page I of 1
Kellam, Nui
from: KaAam, Paul
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 2:02 PM
To. 'Jerry Jensen'
Cc: Lamb, Eric; Dawson, Car[; Thompson, David: Kelly,
Subject-, Cedar Grove Wakefield Plantation
Jerry,
Carl, Eric, and f m6i to discuss the crossing associated with Cedes
Is important to the public and therefore we can not support the vari nce for the overly long
not choose to go to Planning Commission, then you will n Grove at the e l We feel cul-de-sac. If connect"
We feel you do
a different type of footing design, bridge, etc. y eed top vide us some type of connection whether it is
Paul ,
3/14/2005
a,,. SfATt>?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
JUG, I6 FQ
wither I99f
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .7e/
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 13, 2005
COUNTY: Wake
SUBJECT: Request for Access to Old NC 98 (SR 1967)
Cedar Grove Subdivision
Mr. Jerry Jensen, P.E.
Withers & Ravanel
111 MacKenan Drive
Cary, N.C. 27511
Dear Mr. Jensen,
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
This office has completed a review of the preliminary plans received on April 14, 2005 for the
proposed driveway access onto Old NC 98 (SR 1967) for Cedar Grove Subdivision. Due to the
requested driveway's location within the limits of T.I.P. R-2809A and it's effect on the function and
safety of the future NC 98 Bypass/Realigned Falls of Neuse Road intersection, the Department of
Transportation will not allow any driveway attachment to Old NC 98 for this development. Access to
Falls of Neuse Road and US 1 for this subdivision already exist via internal roadways located within
Wakefield Development.
An illegal driveway attachment has already been made to Old NC 98 (SR 1967) and is being used as a
construction entrance at this time. The developer must apply for a Temporary Driveway Access Permit
for this attachment to Old NC 98 (SR 1967) or the driveway connection will be removed. Contact
Reid Elmore, Assistant District Engineer, at [phone] concerning the application process for a
Temporary Driveway Access Permit.
Should you need any further assistance with this matter please contact Reid Elmore at (919) 733-
3213.
Sincerely,
Brando H. Jones, P.E.
District Engineer
BHJ/TRE
cc. Jon G. Nance, P.E., Division Engineer
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone]
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] LOCATION:
DOH DISTRICTI 4009 DISTRICT DRIVE
1575 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC 27607
RALEIGH NC 27699-1575
11/08/2005 17:01 919890378E TRANSPORTATION PAGE 02
COPY
I-k
?J ?Gf??P,(?sli
i
November 1, 2005
Mr_ Kevin C. Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Subject Neuse River Buffer Impacts - Cedar Grove Subdivision, Wakefield
Dear Mr. Martin:
This letter is in response to a request for justification of stream impacts concerning a
portion of the Wakefield development (Cedar Grove Subdivision, Phase 3, S-97-03). An updated
preliminary plan for this property was approved by the City of Raleigh in March 2004. The plain
as presented conforms to City Code requirements for access points, street spacing, and Neuse
River buffer preservation.
The City's street standards have two requirements that frequently create environmental
conflicts: 1) a street spacing standard of 1,500 feet; and 2) a maximum dead-end street length of
800 feet. We frequently work within these requirements to avoid and minimize environmental
impacts whenever possible, 't'hese street requirements originated as a function of traffic flow as a
means of establishing a desirable grid of streets to support an urban development pattern- Lately
these standards have become more stringently applied as a function of fire safety and the City's
compliance with the International Fire Code. Accessibility for emergency response vehicles
becomes critical during major events, as has been borne out locally during previous storms and
hurricanes in our area. A street system with redundancy for points of access is critical within an
urban area for these reasons.
We are committed to looking for options to meet the avoidance and minimization needs
of the environmental system, whether that means changing the location, frequency, or design of
the crossings. Many impacts have been avoided with recent site plan and subdivision approvals
as a result of being proactive in avoiding environmental impacts-
If you need any other information, please give me a call at [phone] or email me at
eric.lamb®ci.raleigh.xu_us.
Sincerely,
Eric J. Lamb, PF-
Manager, Transportation Services Division
Cc: Mr. Mitchell Silver, AICP - Planning Director
Mr. Carl R Dawson, Jr., PE - Public Works Director
Mr. John Myers - Wakefield Development Corp.
OFFICES • 222 WEST HARGETT STREET • POST OFFICE SOX X90 • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
RECYC,LEO PAPER
WITHERS ?t RAVENEL
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS 1 SURVEYORS
October 3, 2005
Mr. Kevin Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. g ` I
11010 Raven Ridge Road ! iU
Raleigh, NC 27614 V
Re: Cedar Grove at Wakefield Plantation LYS, a i a,.,;,PA
W&R #203218 °
Dear Kevin,
In March of 2005, Wakefield Development Company pursued a variance request from the
City of Raleigh to relieve them the requirement by the City to extend a connecting road
from phase 1 to phase 3 in the Cedar Grove residential subdivision. The connecting road
will span a wetland channel that will obviously result in impacts to the wetland channel.
The City is requiring the extension of the connecting road based on their Subdivision
Code of Ordinances that state..."code section 10-3041 ... the design and construction of
public and private streets and sidewalks, driveway access points, and rights-of-way
requirements shall be in accordance with the standards and requirements in the Street,
Sidewalk, and Driveway Access Handbook..." On page 13 of the Street, Sidewalk,
and Driveway Access Handbook, it states... "that the maximum dead-end street length
serving residential dwelling units shall not exceed eight hundred (800) linear feet." Copies
of both of these ordinances and regulations are attached to this letter.
In March 2005, Wakefield Development Company asked the City to allow the termination
of roadway prior to crossing the wetland channel and avoid its impact. The resulting
dead-end street length in Cedar Grove, phase 3 would be approximately 2,400 feet. We
offered an option that would reduce the dead-end length to approximately 1,800 feet, but
since these distances exceed the maximum dead-end length allowed by their regulations,
they could not support our variance request. No other viable options are available to
comply with the maximum dead-end length. Copies of this request letter that was sent to
the City and their response are attached to this letter.
Unfortunately, without the City's permission to terminate the roadway prior to the wetland
channel crossing, we are required by City Code to extend the roadway and connect it to
another street on the other side of the wetland channel.
Please call me if you have any questions or if you need further clarification. Thanks.
Si Y,
Jerry J. Jensen, P.E.
Project Manager
111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511 tel:[phone] fax:[phone]
www.withersravenel.com
2/02 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT § 10-3051
proved by the Chief Engineer within each subdivision
whenever any portion of any lot in the subdivision lies
within a floodprone area as defined in Part 10, chapter
4. The elevation and a description of the location of the
reference mark shall be indicated on plats required
under this chapter, which contain lot(s) in floodprone
areas.
(Code 1959, §20-18; Ord. No. 1978-87 1 -TC-87, §§2, 3, 8-15- 78; Ord. No.
1978-872-TC-88, §24, TC-119, 8-15-78)
Cross reference: Central Engineering Department, Part 6, Chapter
State law reference: Plats and subdivisions, mapping requirements,
G.S. 47-30, as amended.
Secs. 10-3035-10-3040.
RESERVED.
Sec. 10-3041.
STREET DESIGN STANDARDS.
(2) A recombination of lots which may either increase
the number of potential ; access points along a
thoroughfare needed for the lots being recom-
bined or render existing access points noncon-
forming regarding the standards in the Street,
Sidewalk and Driveway Access Handbook is a
violation of this chapter and is impermissible
unless an appropriate legal instrument is recorded
indicating that the potential number of access
points before and after the recombination cannot
be any greater than prior to the recombination. If
a recombined lot which previously had no public
street access can only gain access onto a street in
violation of the standards of the Street, Sidewalk
and Driveway Access Handbook, then this re-
combination may be allowed if the access meets
the standards to the extent feasibly possible.
(Ord. No. 1983-153-TC-190, §13, TC-233, 7-19-83; Ord. No. 1986-799-
TC-267, §48, TC-21-85, 6-3-86; Ord. No. 1986-847-TC- 273, §7, TC-16-
86, 9-2-86; Ord. No. 1987-3 1 -TC-296, §§61-63, TC-16-87, 12-1-87; Ord.
No. 1991-879B-TC-385, §15, TC-12B-91, 11-19-91; Ord. No. 1999-647-
TC-185, §3, TC-7-99, 10-6-99)
The design and construction of public and private streets
and sidewalks, driveway access points, and rights-of-way
requirements shall be in accordance with the standards and
requirements in the Street, Sidewalk, and Driveway Ac-
cess Handbook as amended, on file in the City Clerk's
office.
Policy reference: Variance for Street Improvements in Rural Areas,
Standard Procedure 900-9.
Sec. 10-3042.
ACCESS POINTS.
(a) For any development, the number of access points may
be restricted where it is necessary for purposes of
decreasing traffic congestion or hazards, and shall be
in accordance with the Street, Sidewalk and Drive-
way Access Handbook on file in the City Clerk's
Office. In the case of multiple lot developments or
when the adjoining property is under the same owner-
ship, these restrictions may include required recorded
common access point declarations. When adjoining
properties are owned by different persons, recorded
offers of cross access easements may be required.
(b) All land which adjoins a thoroughfare shall be subject
to the following regulations:
(1) If access to a lot adjoining a thoroughfare is to be
from a public street other than a thoroughfare,
such access shall be stated or shown on the
recorded plat. If the access is onto a thoroughfare,
the location that meets the standards of this Code
may be required to be shown on the recorded plat.
Secs. 10-3043-10-3050.
RESERVED.
Sec. 10-3051.
SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE.
(a) Connection to sanitary sewer prohibited.
No surface water drainage shall empty into a sanitary
sewer.
(b) Piping of watercourses.
This subsection applies to all storm drainage piping of
watercourses except those crossing public or private
.streets: See §10-3053(c), Streets in Floodprone Areas.
All natural watercourses shall remain open and unal-
tered unless piping, enclosing or altering is requested
and justified by the developer and/or required by the
Chief Engineer, but then only when the following
conditions are met:
(1) The developer shall connect the development pipe
system to an existing public or private pipe storm
drainage system when such system, in the opinion
of the Chief Engineer, is reasonably accessible.
The developer shall do all grading and provide all
structures necessary to properly connect to the
existing storm drainage system;
(2) All design and construction shall be done accord-
ing to City .standards;
10/3-27
A
Thoroughfare Improvements
Complete thoroughfare improvements, in conformance with the minimum roadway design cross-
sections illustrated in Section 4.1, shall be made by developments along the entire length of a
thoroughfare system roadway, if any of the following three conditions exist:
1) A development is located within 400 feet of an existing or proposed intersection of either two
(2) thoroughfare system roadways or a thoroughfare system roadway and a collector street
system roadway, and the improvement can be utilized by motorists as a travel lane or
' turning lane to improve vehicle delay, congestion or safety.
2) The predicted vehicle trips generated by a development during peak travel periods,
' combined with the background traffic volume traveling on the thoroughfare system
roadway(s), would reduce the roadway or nearby intersections' capacity below Level-Of-
Service 'D', as defined in the Highwail Capacit Manual 1994, and the improvement can be
utilized by motorists as a travel lane or turning lane to improve vehicle delay, congestion or
?j safety.
3) The improvement would be an extension of an already existing widened section of roadway,
and the improvement can be utilized by motorists as a travel lane or turning lane to improve
vehicle delay, congestion or safety.
Partial thoroughfare improvements, in conformance with the minimum paving construction
standards and additional pavement surfaces to accommodate turning movements will be required in
the event complete thoroughfare improvements are not required as conditioned in the preceding
paragraph.
Dead-End Streets
Dead-end streets should be limited in use, serving residential and non-residential land uses that are
expected to generate low traffic volumes. Unless an equally safe and convenient form of turning
space is provided, dead-end streets shall terminate in a circular cul-de-sac. Dead-end streets shall
conform to the design cross-sections shown in Section 4.2.
The maximum dead-end street length serving residential dwelling units shall not exceed eight
h, hundred (800) linear feet. The maximum dead-end street length serving non-residential uses shall
not exceed four hundred (400) linear feet. The dead-end street length is measured from the center line
of the intersecting street to the center of the circular cul-de-sac right-of-way. In cases where there is no
cul-de-sac, the length shall be measured to the farthest point along the dead-end street from the
intersecting street.
The Transportation Director may approve extra-long dead-end streets of up to 10% above the
800-foot (residential) and 400-foot (nonresidential) standards if a finding is made that there is no
practical through extension possible due to severe topography or other physical features, or due to
existing surrounding development.
13
WITHERS &- RAVENEL
ENGINEERS 1 PLANNERS 1 SURVEYORS
March 9, 2005
Mr. Eric Lamb
Public Works Department
City of Raleigh
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
Mr. Paul Kallam
Public Works Department
City of Raleigh
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Cedar Grove at Wakefield Plantation
W&R #203218
Gentlemen,
On behalf on my client, Wakefield Development Company, we are requesting
approval from the City to amend our original subdivision plan for Cedar Grove at,
Wakefield Plantation. Our original approval had street R002 extending across a
designated wetland channel. Due to various reasons I will explain in further detail
in the proceeding paragraphs, we would like the City's approval to cul-de-sac each
end of street R002 as it approaches the wetland channel. Please see the plan that
have enclosed with this letter that shows the new street and lot configuration we
propose.
Over the last 3-4 months, we have met on several occasions with you and several
other key staff members to discuss the difficulties we have encountered in
crossing the wetland channel with the connecting road. As you are aware, we are
required to span the wetland channel with a bridge or bottomless culvert in order
to avoid disturbance of the wetlands. We do not have the ability to seek an
individual wetland impact permit with the USACE, due to the fact that the
residential portion of Wakefield will lose it's "g randfathe ring" of the Neuse River
Riparian Buffers if we seek a permit to fill. Our geotechnical engineer has made
additional borings and geotechnical investigations at the site of the bottomless
culvert, and has concluded that there is not sufficient bed rock in the immediate
vicinity to support a pile-foundation support system for this bridge. As you are
aware, it the City requirement that these types of structures be supported on bed
rock. Please see the enclosed geotechnical report prepared by Terratech, with a
complete boring log.
We have investigated the possibility of providing a connecting road that would not
have to span the wetland channel. Our investigation concludes that there are no
feasible routes to provide a connecting road without impacting the golf course
iii MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511 tei:919.469.3340 fax:[phone]oo8 www.withersravenet.com
owned by the PGA. As we have shared with you in subsequent meetings, a
conservation easement has been recorded on the golf course property that
prohibits any infrastructure type construction on their property. We investigated
the possibility of extending a road in one specific area immediately north of the
furthest extent of the wetland channel. Our analysis concluded that a small
amount of right-of-way and grading easement would extend into the PGA property.
The impact to the golf course would not be practical or allowable due to the
conservation easement.
It is our understanding that the maximum length of a dead end street based on city
standards is 800 feet. The cul-de-sac length of our new plan measured from the
furthest most single point of entry (at street R004) is approximately 1,800 feet.
Our plan does have a circular roadway system internally that will provide beneficial
circulation in the area. To soften the effects or provide some sense of mitigation of
the long cul-de-sac length, we have come up with a plan that offers the following:
The first 500 feet of street R002 extending from street R004 to the
intersection of street R003 will be a median divided roadway. Each travel
direction on the divided roadway will be of sufficient width (24 feet) to
accommodate residents, as well as, emergency vehicles. In the unlikely
event of a vehicle breakdown or some other lane blockage in either
direction of travel, there will be an opportunity to continue getting vehicles in
and out of the area by using the other travel lane. This scenario would
reduce the cul-de-sac length to approximately 1,300 feet.
2. Wakefield has made a decision to reduce the number of lots in this phase of
the development by 10 units. The original subdivision plan would have 82
lots in this phase of the development. The new plan reduces the number of
lots to 72.
There are several existing subdivisions within Wakefield where the cul-de-sac
length exceeds the City's maximum. These subdivisions include Club Villas,
Carrington, Savannah, and Dunleith just to name a few. It is our understanding
that these already developed examples operate without detriment to public travel,
safety, or service deliveries.
We understand that you will discuss this proposal with Carl Dawson and other
members of the city staff. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of our
request, and we eagerly await your answer. If I or the Wakefield Development
team can provide you with any additional information, please do not hesitate to call
us.
Sincerely,
Jerry J. Jensen, P.E.
Project Manager
cc: Wakefield Development Company
iii MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511 tel:[phone] fax:[phone]oo8 www.withersravenet.com
?v?tnn? Icy;1'L y1y-?90-3727 CITY RAL TRANSP PAGE 02
Page 1 of 1
Kallam, Paul
From: Kallam, Paul
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 2:02 PM
To: 'Jerry Jensen'
Cc: Lamb, Eric; Dawson, Carl; Thompson, David; Kelly,
Subject: Cedar Grove Wakefield Plantation
Jerry,
Carl, Eric, and I met to discuss the crossing associated with Cedar Grove at Wakefield- We feel the connectivity
is important to the public and therefore we cannot support the variance for the overly long cul-de-sac. If you do
not choose to go to Planning Commission, then you will need to pr vide us some type of connection whether it is
a different type of footing design, bridge, etc.
Paul
3/14/2005
Cedar Grove at Wakefield Plantation, Phase 3
Calculation of Impervious Surface Area Percentage
Impervious Surface Areas
Public Street Paving Area 87,048 s.f.
Public Sidewalk Paving Area 15,499 s.f.
House Footprint Area (Avg. 1,900 sq.ft. per dwelling) 157,700 s.f.
House Sidewalk Area (Avg. 150 sq.ft. per dwelling) 12,450 s.f.
House Driveway Apron Area (Avg. 400 sq.ft. per dwelling) 33,200 s.f.
Impervious Surface Area = 305,897 sJ.
7.02 ac.
Common Open Space 10.13 ac.
Total Grass Areas 11.90 ac.
Impervious Surface Areas 7.02 ac.
Total Tract Area = 29.05 ac.
Impervious Surface Area Percentage = 24%
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: v .,IL Latitude:
Evaluator. ,/ r 4 Site: t/L1
Total Points: Le Longitude:
ILL V ;1'l Other
SUeam is at least intemwtent County:
if 219 or perennial if 2 30 e.g. Quad Name:

A. Geomo hol (Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 -- 1 2 3
9° Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 ` 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 > 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No `0
Yes = 3
- man-mace cacnes are not rates; (sere ,ciscussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = P" T h
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 ? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 r?? 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 G 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 ., 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes =T1.5

20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2.2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2.? 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 22 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 % 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 ' 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use bads side of this form for additional notes.)
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
M
Provide the following information for the strea reach under assessment: r
1. Applicant's name: -'`?k ` Lt t 2. Evaluator's name: 1\ 61 V p n Alta (` ??
i
3. Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation: 3 "? yam.
5. Name of stream: a y- c 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
8. Stream order:- t 5
10. County: obi 6
12. Subdivision name (if any): U c klt- (' .i t
Longitude (ex. -77.556611
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other wy L -? ? k 1 t A,
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
C- uki 4-
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit: < ?? F
;S- (4.

17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters ' - Water Supply Watershed - (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES fi 1( If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 'E NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
Forested ( Q % Cleared / Logged U o Other ( ? ?Y
t ? ?/° a n )
22. Bankfull width: Li t
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends
?t t
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): &
Gentle (2 to 4%F- Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality. (?, -
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 1 I. 17 ( 1' `a
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
L
U
0
?L
V
L
U
LO
O
O
N
LO
N
r
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

#
R
CTER ECOREGION POIN T RANGE -
CHA
A
ISTICS - SCORE
- Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0
5 0
4 0

no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow =
max points) - - -5
e

Z '
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = mar points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points
5' Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
no discharge= 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
,.,
y, 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max ints) 0 4 0- 4 0- 2
>
?; - Entrenchment / floodplaip access 0-5 0- 4 0 - 2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) Z 9

$ Presence of adjacent wetlands
- 6
0-4
0 -2
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points y
0 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3

extensive channelization =0; natural meander --max points) Y
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 S
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment - max points •
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
fine, homogenous = 0- large, diverse sizes = max points) -

?
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
y+ (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
N
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
a severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

i ?
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
F-+ (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throw bout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
i

r
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points s

16 Presence of riffle-pooVripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6 -

S
no riffles/tipples or pools= 0; well-developed = max points) ;

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
p
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
b
0-5
0-5
0-5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) - J
w
19 -
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max) o

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5 .-
(no evidence - 0, common, numerous types = max points) Z a
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence= 0; conunon, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use,
0=6
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible Iff 100 I too
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) --

* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
J
00
00
CL
Zi
w
Z
z
Z
?
N

/lL1
Ll-j
- - -- " "??
?

'
m O ??t. I\ O // - - - -
LL-
Q, N - - - 3 L
i Ww\
1
J

1
\
1 L-Li
1 w
c

n Z
V) C)
k

LLJI
= W
11 11 wu
O ' O
'

o
G
J
W
° ?
Z
O sad
? r
Q ? r -s
3
U)
C N „
zCl. IZ W?
Q WW=
LV O W yT^
\ I ,1 / IZ
- ?'\ \ III _.- -? /?/ /ii/?/ •/? f-'
LLJ
/ Zj:
cl?
Z
Ll-j
\\ /' / \I? / ti 0A. / t1??
/) /
-A F-
,61 Li-
Z
/ W //L?
/'/ Lu
LU
W
/ U
LLJ
\\\?\\\ 1\
z '/ // 4.f
?\ \\\\\\ \ \ 0iT
WIQ
\\ \\\\\\ 111\
\ \ \ \\\
$
/
15
V7 / / m
r '?*-
-d?J;
,Fco , stem„
PROGRAM
December 12, 2005
E C E I V E
DEC 15 2005
Soil S Emivnmer tal Cwwftants, Pa
Kevin Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Project: Cedar Grove at Wakefield
County: Wake
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NC EEP) is willing to
accept payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that
the payment will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the .
applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NC EEP will be approved.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. If we have not received a copy of the issued 404
Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send
copies of the 404/401/CAMA permits to NC EEP. Once NC EEP receives a copy of the 404 Permit and/or the 401
Certification an invoice will be issued and payment must be made.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the
following table.
River Basin Wetlands Stream Buffer Buffer
Cataloging (Acres) (Linear Feet) Zone 1 Zone 2
Unit (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.)
Rip azian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh Cold Cool Warm
Neuse 0 0 0 0 0 188 0 0
03020201
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation for the permitted impacts
up to a 2:1 ratio, (buffers, Zone 1 at a 3:1 ratio and Zone 2 at a 1.5:1 ratio). The type and amount of the compensatory
mitigation will be as specified in the Section 404 Permit and/or 401 Water Quality Certification, and/or CAMA Permit. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N. C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at [phone].
Sincerely,
W ' m D. Gilmore, PE/
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Monte Matthews, USACE - Raleigh
Eric Kulz, DWQ Regional Office - Raleigh
File
RUtorultg... E ... Prot-", our lta&
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
Environmental Consultants, PA
Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
December 20, 2005
S&EC Project # 3037.W0
To: US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Monte Mathews
6508 Falls of the Neuse Rd
Suite 120
Raleigh, N.C. 27615
From: Kevin Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Re: Cedar Grove at Wakefield
Raleigh, Wake County, NC
USACE Action ID #200620190
NC Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit
Attn: Cyndi Karoly
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
1j.
[a r
41
Y
On behalf of the owners, Sandler at Wakefield LLC (Attn: Randy Smith), please find attached a complete application and
supplemental information requesting written concurrence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC-DWQ) that the activities proposed below may precede utilizing an Individual Permit. In
addition, written authorization from the NC-DWQ is requested for an Associated Water Quality Certification. Please contact me
at [phone] if you have any questions or require additional information.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Name Cedar Grove at Wakefield
Project Type Residential Subdivision
Owner / Applicant Sandler at Wakefield LLC
County Wake
Nearest Town Raleigh
Waterbod Name UT Richland Creek
Basin / Sub-basin 03020201
Index Number 27-21-(1.5)
Class WS IV
IMPACT SUMMARY
Stream Impact (acres): 0.01
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.01
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 188
Attachments:
Eng Form 4345
Pre-construction Notification (PCN) Application Form
Agent Authorization
USGS Vicinity Map
Detailed Impact Maps and Overall Site Plan Maps
DWQ & USACE Stream ID form plus pictures
$475 Water Quality Certification Fee
NCEEP Acceptance Letter
Adjacent Property Owners
Other Approvals
3/9/05 Letter to the City of Raleigh
3/11/05 E-mail from the City of Raleigh
6/13/05 NC-DOT Letter
11101105 City of Raleigh
10/03/05 Withers & Ravenel Letter
Impervious Calculations
Charlotte Office: Greensboro Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C 3817-E Lawndale Drive
Concord, NC 28025 Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
(33 CFR 325) Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directories of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite
1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302= and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503.
Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction
over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT =
2 7
A
uthority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws required permits authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable
waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the
purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this from will be used in evaluating the application for a permit.
Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor
can a permit be issues.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BYAPPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Sandler at Wakefield, LLC
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
3209 Gresham Lake Road, Suite 160, Raleigh, NC 27615 11010 Raven Ridge Road, Raleigh, NC 27614
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 919-556-4310 b. Business 919-846-5900
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, Soil & Environmental Consultants PA to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon
request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
(See attached authorization)
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Cedar Grove at Wakefield
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) UTo/Richland Creek 114. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
15. LOCATION OF THE PROJECT
NC I N/A
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, (see instructions)
See attached USGS Topo Vicinity Map
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
South of proposed Hwy 98 Bypass, East of Falls of the Neuse Road, West of Wakefield Plantation Blvd.
ENG. FORM 4345, Feb 94 EDITION OF SEPT 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
1 8. Nature of Activity !Description of project, include a# features/
Construction of internal subdivision road consisting of one crossing of a stream.
19. Project Purpose !Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions/
To allow development of uplands for a residential subdivision that meets City of Raleigh requirements (See attached 11/1105 letter from the City of
Raleigh and 10/3/05 and 3/8/05 letters by the project engineer Withers & Ravenel).
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
To construct an internal subdivision road, specifically a crossing of a first order perennial stream.
21. Type(s) of material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Native soils acquired on-site, 300 cubic yards below mean high water, 4500 cubic yards total to construct crossing.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled /see instructions!
0.01 acres (188 linear feet) of perennial stream.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No X IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
See attached list.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL` IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
See attached list.
" Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly
authorized agent of the applicant.
LrL,t'V ?-?Cvt?.r?l aiu 19')0-0105
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT
DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized
agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly
and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or
representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry,
shall be fined not more than 510,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(it any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1.
II.
Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Individual
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coas(al Mana etnent E1tea? of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), heck here?fl" '-= s=
Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
2 ? 2005

Name: Sandler at Wakefield, LLC
Mailing Address: Attn: Randy Smith
3209 Gresham Lake Road
Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone Number: 919-556-4310 Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Kevin Martin
Company Affiliation: S&EC PA
Mailing Address: 11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Telephone Number: 919-846-5900 Fax Number: 919-846-9467
E-mail Address: kmartinna,sandec.com
Page 1 of 9
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than I 1 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Cedar Grove at Wakefield
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Raleigh
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Wakefield
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): East of Falls of the Neuse
Road, South of the proposed Hwy 98 Bypass, and West of Wakefield Plantation Drive.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.9660 ON 78.5552 °W
6. Property size (acres): 1900 in entire project, 1300 within residential tracts
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: UT of Richland Creek
8. River Basin: Neuse
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application:_ Residential or undeveloped land, some recreational lands
(golf course)
Page 2 of 9
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Construction of a phase of a residential subdivision using typical grading equipment
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Comply with City of Raleigh requirements
regarding internal subdivision roads which require one stream crossing for this phase
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. Wetlands were delineated by another consultant and confirmed by Eric
Alsmeyer of the Corps on 4/17/97. Several nationwide permits have been issued including;
199602047, 1999821238, 199821239, and 200120770 DWQ #961148 The project was
previously determined to have "vested rights" and is not subject to the Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Rules. Cumulative permitted project impacts to date are NW 26 (0.643 ac) NW 14
(0.304 , NW 13 (0.098), NW 39 (0.329)=1.374 ac.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No additional impacts are anticipated.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
Page 3 of 9
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: One perpendicular crossing of
a stream for an internal subdivision road. See attached Sheet 1 "Wetland Impact Map" and
Overall Site Plan for this phase of the project by Withers & Ravenel.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
es/no Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: Unknown >10
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
indicate on ma
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
linear feet Area of
Impact
acres
1 UT of Richland Creek Fill/Culvert Perennial 2' 188' 0.01

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 180' 0.01
Page 4 of 9
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc. Area of
Impact
acres

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the nroiect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.01
Wetland Impact acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. acres 0.01
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 188'
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. The clients attempted to avoid
Page 5 of 9
this crossing by cul-de-sacing the road on each side or by installing a bottomless culvert (see
attached 3/19/05 letter from Withers & Ravenel The City denied the request to cul-de-sac the
roads (see attached 3/11/05 e-mail). The client also requested a connection to Falls of the Neuse
Road from DOT which would meet the City's requirements but that request was denied (see the
6/13/05 letter from DOT).
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
htip://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The client proposes payment to NCEEP at a 1.1 ratio Since every possible attempt to
avoid the impact within our clients control has been made.
Page 6 of 9
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wM/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 188'
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ? No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 213.0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 0213.0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify, )? Yes ? No ® Project is vested.
Page 7 of 9
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 N/A 3 (2 for Catawba) N/A
2 N/A 1.5 N/A
Total N/A N/A
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. None required.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. The proposed project will have 24% impervious
surface (calculations attached). Therefore DWO stormwater treatment is not reauired. The
project is not subject to the Neuse Buffer rules so diffuse flow demonstration is not required.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Municipal
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
Page 8 of 9
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Applican Agents Signature Date
(Agent's signature is-valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
12-19-'05 17;45 FROM- 9195564310 T-462 P002/002 F-453
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
All Blanks To Be Filled In By The Current Landowner
Name: Sandler at Wakefield, LLC
Address: 3209 Gresham Lake Road, Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27615,
Phone: [phone]
Project Name/ Description: -Cedar Grove at Wakefield- S&EC Project #3037.W0
Date: 12/ 08 / 05
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Attn: __Monte Matthews
Field Office. Raleigh
Re: Wetlands Related Consulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
I, the current ro er owner, hereby designate and authorize Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA to
act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon request
supplemental information in support of applications, etc. from this day forward. The -8th day of
-December, 2005
This notification supersedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
NOTICE: This authorization, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only for
government officials to enter the property when accompanied by S&EC staff. You should call S&EC
to arrange a site meeting prior to visiting the site.
Print Prop rty Owner's Name

Property Owner's Signature
cc: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NCDENR - DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
cc: Mr. Kevin Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA

Property Owner
CALLOWAY ON THE GREEN
TOWNHOMES
ASSOC INCC/O CENTEX HOMES Owner's Mailing Address
C/O CENTEX.HOMES
3739 NATIONAL DR STE 101
RALEIGH NC 27612-4844 Property Location Address
3051 FALLS OF NEUSE RD
WAKE FOREST NC 27587-0000
Administratve Data Transfer Information Assessed Value
Old Map # 215-
Map/Scale 1830 01 Deed Date 1215/2001 Land Value Assessed $78,544
VCS 19RA900 Book & Page 09195 0397 Bldg. Value Assessed
City RALEIGH Revenue Stamps
Fire District Pkg Sale Date Tobacco Pounds
Township WAKE FOREST Pkg Sale Price Tobacco Value
Land Class H.ASSOC Land Sale Date
ETJ RA Land Sale Price Land Use Value
Spec Dist(s) Use Value Deferment
Zoning R-6 Improvement Summary Historic Deferment
History ID 1 Total Deferred Value
History ID 2 Total Units 0
Acreage 1.36 Recycle Units 0
Permit Date Apt/SC Sqft Use/Hist Assessed
11Permit# Heated Area Total Value Assessed $78,544
Property Owner
WAKEFIELD GLEN LLC
C/O CROSLAND GROUP INC Owner's Mailing Address
C/O CROSLAND GROUP INC
227 W TRADE ST STE 900
CHARLOTTE NC 28202-1675 Property Location Address
2411 GARDEN HILL DR
RALEIGH NC 27614-6896
Administratve Data Transfer Information Assessed Value
Old Map # 215-00000-0000
Map/Scale 1830 01 Deed Date . 313011999 Land Value Assessed $1,968,000
VCS ANCRA01 Book & Page 08280 0866 Bldg. Value Assessed $17,438,263
City RALEIGH Revenue Stamps
Fire District Pkg Sale Date Tobacco Pounds
Township WAKE FOREST Pkg Sale Price Tobacco Value
Land Class APRTMENT Land Sale Date 6115/1998
ETJ RA Land Sale Price $2,108,000 Land Use Value
Spec Dist(s) Use Value Deferment
Zoning R-6 Improvement Summary Historic Deferment
History ID 1 Total Deferred Value
History ID 2 Total Units 246
Acreage 22.55 Recycle Units 246
Permit Date Apt/SC Sqft 221,964 Use/Hist Assessed
Permit # Heated Area 286,520 Total Value Assessed $19,406,263
Property Owner
CAROLINA PRINCESS LLC Owner's Mailing Address
1034 JONES WYND
WAKE FOREST NC 27587-7381 Property Location Address
2724 OLD NC 98 HWY
WAKE FOREST NC 27587-0000
Administratve Data Transfer Information Assessed Value
Old Map # 216-00000-0105
Map/Scale 1830 01 Deed Data 12/4/2000 Land Value Assessed $107,810
VCS CBWO001 Book & Page 08748 2595 Bldg. Value Assessed
City Revenue Stamps 1000.00
Fire District 23 Pkg Sale Date Tobacco Pounds
Township WAKE FOREST Pkg Sale Price Tobacco Value
Land Class VACANT Land Sale Date 1 2/4120 0 0
ETJ WC Land Sale Price $500,000 Land Use Value
Spec Dist(s) Use Value Deferment
Zoning R-30 Improvement Summary Historic Deferment
History ID 1 Total Deferred Value
History ID 2 Total Units 0
Acreage 4.95 Recycle Units 0
Permit Date Apt/SC Sqft Use/Hist Assessed
Permit # Heated Area Total Value Assessed $107,810
Property Owner
TOURNAMENT PLAYERS CLUB OF
RAL LLC
C/O PGA TOUR GOLF COURSE PROP
INC Owner's Mailing Address
C/O PGA TOUR GOLF COURSE PROP
INC
100 PGA TOUR BLVD
PONTE VEDRA BEACH FL 32082-3046 Property Location Address
3330 WAKEFIELD PLANTATION DR
WAKE FOREST NC 27587-0000
Administratve Data Transfer Information Assessed Value
Old Map # 215-00000-0000
Map/Scale 1830 01 Deed Date 312612002 Land Value Assessed $150,150
VCS FNRA001 Book & Page 09349 0010 Bldg. Value Assessed $793,602
City RALEIGH Revenue Stamps 1757.00
Fire District Pkg Sale Date Tobacco Pounds
Township WAKE FOREST Pkg Sale Price Tobacco Value
Land Class COMMERCL Land Sale Date 3/26/2002
ETJ RA Land Sale Price $878,500 Land Use Value
Spec Dist(s) Use Value Deferment
Zoning R-6 Improvement Summary Historic Deferment
History ID 1 Total Deferred Value
History ID 2 Total Units 0
Acreage 10.01 Recycle Units 0
Permit Date 8/17/2001 Apt/SC; Sqft Use/Hist Assessed
Permit # 0000012472 Heated Area 5,201 Total Value Assessed $943,752
(( 1 11

L¢.
P
A
A
f
7
O
A
G
A
Cawy ?? ????s-s ?! ?
NC, 11;?T
Z.+S. 0+?e t Ve A e t'a t ?`v gay' e
Loc-,ak Apfft v &lS
Subdivision Approval
S-97-03
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 9/4/03
Date Approved" 2/2/04
Construction Drawing
S-97-03
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 7/1/05
Date Approved: 11/14/05
Water and Sewer Permit
S-97-03
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 7/1/05
Date Approved: 11/14/05
Grading Permit
Transaction #99540
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 10/6/04
Date Approved: 11/17/04
Landscape Permit
Transaction #99333
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 10/6/04
Date Approved: 10/14/04
Stormwater Management Permit
Nitrogen Reduction
N-95-05
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 6/13/05
Date Approved: 7/1/05
Record Plat
S-97-03
City of Raleigh
Date Applied: 11/30/05
Date Approved: pending
kk irk - ?( ??? ( \1 ??\{\ ',?!`. \f ark a??\
40-
\.'\ / '. 1 l ???':. ??CRI??. J\\ V'J ?•\j?l\\1 \? - ? - ? , `. )?J ?.` 111 ??
? V250
2-5 "J
a
A r
* 1
MN E
GN
7•
124 MILS 1.26•
25 MILS
M GRID AND 1987 MAGNETIC NORTH
DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET
v 7
0

NW?11`

' •7?
4
C3 1
Y/ O50 '
?J T _ 1 I ?
1 /
I $ ? 4• I
? SCALE 1:24000 •?? 1 Jv-
o -
1000 1 MLLE
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
1 5000 6000 7000 FEET
5 0
1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
WAKE FOREST QUADRANGLE
NORTH CAROLINA-WAKE CO.
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
WAKEFIELD
pve roe tl
yo
C
E
D
B
A
F
i ?.
V P`i'u71 k

? 'j
J

y

V
WETLAND IMPACTS WAKEFIELD 8-98 SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. Inc. S&EC JOB #3037
R qN w w r.r¦?.w. N c... mn.ma sw5m
ro `d' X "n
m n
r
Cl)
r%°.. v z o
Z M
Cl)
?Sa ' <NI -? J 1 04?, ,aa
- - m
Q
? /` T <J C\v ?A
f as ? i:; ?' /? ?. _ • m O.._. 4. ,.
f:
rrf
J Q'i
r ( rte" '
?.y..-- IMF
ni \
-?f P.2
?1 • ??ti? yY,,%? `• ...i'ce` ??/ '•,,?`•` i `x./? ?/ m O
L G. PJ) 0.
47
c `•
CO 4*b
so Or
4b* /I CO)
C?
P
N
?
vloftv
?D
R
06/23/05 09:27 FAX [phone] WITHERS & RAVENEL 11002
WITHERS & RAVENEL
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS 1 SURVEYORS
March 9, 2005
Mr. Eric Lamb
Public Works Department
City of Raleigh
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
Mr. Paul Kallam
Public Works Department
City of Raleigh
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Cedar Grove at Wakefield Plantation
W&R #203218
Gentlemen,
On behalf on my client, Wakefield Development Company, we are requesting
approval from the City to amend our original subdivision plan for Cedar Grove at
Wakefield Plantation. Our original approval had street R002 extending across a
designated wetland channel. Due to various reasons I will explain in further detail
in the proceeding paragraphs, we would like the City's approval to cul-de-sac each
end of street R002 as it approaches the wetland channel. Please see the plan that
have enclosed with this letter that shows the new street and lot configuration we
propose.
Over the last 3-4 months, we have met on several occasions with you and several
other key staff members to discuss the difficulties we have encountered in
crossing the wetland channel with the connecting road. As you are aware, we are
required to span the wetland channel with a bridge or bottomless culvert in order
to avoid disturbance of the wetlands, We do not have the ability to seek an
individual wetland impact permit with the USACE, due to the fact that the
residential portion of Wakefield will lose it's "grandfathering" of the Neuse River
Riparian Buffers if we seek a permit to fill, Our geotechnical engineer has made
additional borings and geotechnical investigations at the site of the bottomless
culvert, and has concluded that there is not sufficient bed rock in the immediate
vicinity to support a pile-foundation support system for this bridge. As you are
aware, it the City requirement that these types of structures be supported on bed
rock. Please see the enclosed geotechnical report prepared by Terratech, with a
complete boring log,
We have investigated the possibility of providing a connecting road that would not
have to span the wetland channel. Our investigation concludes that there are no
feasible routes to provide a connecting road without impacting the golf course
111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511 tel:919.469,3340 faX1919,467.6008 www.withersravenel_com
06/23/05 09:27 FAX [phone] WITHERS & RAVENEL 1a003
owned by the PGA. As we have shared with you in subsequent meetings, a
conservation easement has been recorded on the golf course property that
prohibits any infrastructure type construction on their property. We investigated
the possibility of extending a road in one specific area Immediately north of the
furthest extent of the wetland channel. Our analysis concluded that a small
amount of right-of-way and grading easement would extend into the PGA property.
The impact to the golf course would not be practical or allowable due to the
conservation easement.
It is our understanding that the maximum length of a dead end street based on city
standards is 800 feet. The cul-de-sac length of our new plan measured from the
furthest most single point of entry (at street R004) is approximately 1,800 feet.
Our plan does have a circular roadway system internally that will provide beneficial
circulation in the area. To soften the effects or provide some sense of mitigation of
the long cul-de-sac length, we have come up with a plan that offers the following:
1. The first 500 feet of street R002 extending from street R004 to the
intersection of street R003 will be a median divided roadway. Each travel
direction on the divided roadway will be of sufficient width (24 feet) to
accommodate residents, as well as, emergency vehicles. In the unlikely
event of a vehicle breakdown or some other lane blockage in either
direction of travel, there will be an opportunity to continue getting vehicles in
and out of the area by using the other travel lane. This scenario would
reduce the cul-de-sac length to approximately 1,300 feet.
2. Wakefield has made a decision to reduce the number of lots in this phase of
the development by 10 units. The original subdivision plan would have 82
lots in this phase of the development. The new plan reduces the number of
lots to 72.
There are several existing subdivisions within Wakefield where the cul-de-sac
length exceeds the City's maximum. These subdivisions include Club Villas,
Carrington, Savannah, and Dunleith just to name a few. It is our understanding
that these already developed examples operate without detriment to public travel,
safety, or service deliveries. .
We understand that you will discuss this proposal with Carl Dawson and other
members of the city staff. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of our
request, and we eagerly await your answer. If I or the Wakefield Development
team can provide you with any additional information, please do not hesitate to call
us.
Sincerely,
Jerry J, Jensen, P. E,
Project Manager
cc: Wakefield Development Company
iai MecKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511 tel:919.469.334o fax y19.467.6ooB www.withersravenet.com
06/23/05 09:27 FAX [phone]
?...? +?v JAL!
Kallarn, Paul
WITHERS & RAVENEL
CITY RAL TRANSP
from: Kallam, Paul
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 2:02 PM
To. "Jerry Jensen'
Cc: Lamb, Lric; Dawson, Carl; Thompson, David: Koily,
Subject, Cec{ar Grove Wakefield Plantation
Jerry,
[1004
PAGE 61
Page 1 of 1
Carl, Eric, and I mgt to discuss the crossing associated with Ceda
Is impoitant to the public and thL-rpfore we can not support the vari n e forthe overjy long cute-d sac o If youi
(JiOpy
not choose to go to Planning Commission, then you will need to p vide us some type of connection whether it is
a different typo of footing design, bridge, etG_
Paul
3/14/2005
.50-
? --M
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
WAN I6 FO
'Pikers DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION RaIlen
e/
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 13, 2005
COUNTY: Wake
SUBJECT: Request for Access to Old NC 98 (SR 1967)
Cedar Grove Subdivision
Mr. Jerry Jensen, P.E.
Withers & Ravanel
111 MacKenan Drive
Cary, N.C. 27511
Dear Mr. Jensen,
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
This office has completed a review of the preliminary plans received on April 14, 2005 for the
proposed driveway access onto Old NC 98 (SR 1967) for Cedar Grove Subdivision. Due to the
requested driveway's location within the limits of T.I.P. R-2809A and it's effect on the function and
safety of the future NC 98 Bypass/Realigned Falls of Neuse Road intersection, the Department of
Transportation will not allow any driveway attachment to Old NC 98 for this development. Access to
Falls of Neuse Road and US 1 for this subdivision already exist via internal roadways located within
Wakefield Development.
An illegal driveway attachment has already been made to Old NC 98 (SR 1967) and is being used as a
construction entrance at this time. The developer must apply for a Temporary Driveway Access Permit
for this attachment to Old NC 98 (SR 1967) or the driveway connection will be removed. Contact
Reid Elmore, Assistant District Engineer, at [phone] concerning the application process for a
Temporary Driveway Access Permit.
Should you need any further assistance with this matter please contact Reid Elmore at (919) 733-
3213.
Sincerely,
Brando H. Jones, P.E.
District Engineer
BHJ/TRE
cc. Jon G. Nance, P.E., Division Engineer
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone]
DOH DISTRICTI 4009 DISTRICT DRIVE
1575 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC 27607
RALEIGH NC 27699-1575
11/08/2005 17:01 9198903786 TRANSPORTATION PAGE 02
COPY
'l
??ule,,
November 1, 2005
Mr. Kevin C. Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Subject Neuse River Buffer Impacts - Cedar Grove Subdivision, Wakefield
Dear Mr. Martin:
This letter is in response to a -request for justification of stream impacts concerning a
portion of the Wakefield development (Cedar Grove Subdivision, Phase 3, S-97-03). An updated
preliminary plan for this property was approved by the City of Raleigh in March 2004. The plan
as presented conforms to City Code requirements for access points, street spacing, and Neuse
River buffer preservation.
The City's street standards have two requirements that frequently create environmental
conflicts: 1) a street spacing standard of 1,500 feet; and 2) a maximum dead-end street length of
800 feet. We frequently work within these requirements to avoid and minimize environmental
impacts whenever possible. These street requirements originated as a function of traffic flow as a
means of establishing a desirable grid of streets to support an urban development pattern. Lately
these standards have become more stringently applied as a function of fire safety and the City's
compliance with the International Fire Code. Accessibility for emergency response vehicles
becomes critical during major events, as has been borne out locally during previous storms and
hurricanes in our area. A street system with redundancy for points of access is critical within an
urban area for these reasons.
We are committed to looking for options to meet the avoidance and minimization needs
of the environmental system, whether that means changing the location, frequency, or design of
the crossings. Many impacts have been avoided with recent site plan and subdivision approvals
as a result of being proactive in avoiding environmental impacts.
If you need any other information, please give me a call at [phone] or email me at
eric.lamb@ci..raleigh.nc.us.
Sincerely,
Eric J. Lamb, PE
Manager, Transportation Services Division
Cc: Mr. Mitchell Silver, AICP - Planning Director
Mr. Carl R. Dawson, Jr., PE - Public Works Director
Mr. John Myers - Wakefield Development Corp.
OFFICES • 222 WFST HARGETT STREET • POST OFFICE Sox 590 • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
RFCYCLFD PAPEK
WITHERS RAVENEL
ENGINEERS 1 PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
October 3, 2005
Mr. Kevin Martin ilr;1 ;Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
1
Re: Cedar Grove at Wakefield Plantation
r; ,s PA
W&R #203218°- s `_-
Dear Kevin,
In March of 2005, Wakefield Development Company pursued a variance request from the
City of Raleigh to relieve them the requirement by the City to extend a connecting road
from phase 1 to phase 3 in the Cedar Grove residential subdivision. The connecting road
will span a wetland channel that will obviously result in impacts to the wetland channel.
The City is requiring the extension of the connecting road based on their Subdivision
Code of Ordinances that state... "code section 10-3041...the design and construction of
public and private streets and sidewalks, driveway access points, and rights-of-way
requirements shall be in accordance with the standards and requirements in the Street,
Sidewalk, and Driveway Access Handbook..." On page 13 of the Street, Sidewalk,
and Driveway Access Handbook, it states... "that the maximum dead-end street length
serving residential dwelling units shall not exceed eight hundred (800) linear feet." Copies
of both of these ordinances and regulations are attached to this letter.
In March 2005, Wakefield Development Company asked the City to allow the termination
of roadway prior to crossing the wetland channel and avoid its impact. The resulting
dead-end street length in Cedar Grove, phase 3 would be approximately 2,400 feet. We
offered an option that would reduce the dead-end length to approximately 1,800 feet, but
since these distances exceed the maximum dead-end length allowed by their regulations,
they could not support our variance request. No other viable options are available to
comply with the maximum dead-end length. Copies of this request letter that was sent to
the City and their response are attached to this letter.
Unfortunately, without the City's permission to terminate the roadway prior to the wetland
channel crossing, we are required by City Code to extend the roadway and connect it to
another street on the other side of the wetland channel.
Please call me if you have any questions or if you need further clarification. Thanks.
Si y,
JerryJ. Jensen, P.E.
Project Manager
11 1 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511 tel:[phone] fox:919.467.6008
www.withersravenel.com
2/02 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT § 10-3051
proved by the Chief Engineer within each subdivision
whenever any portion of any lot in the subdivision lies
within a floodprone area as defined in Part 10, chapter
4. The elevation and a description of the location of the
reference mark shall be indicated on plats required
under this chapter, which contain lot(s) in floodprone
areas.
(Code 1959, §20-18; Ord. No. 1978-871-TC-87, §§2, 3, 8-15- 78; Ord. No.
1978-872-TC-88, §24, TC-119, 8-15-78)
Cross reference: Central Engineering Department, Part 6, Chapter
State law reference: Plats and subdivisions, mapping requirements,
G.S. 47-30, as amended.
Secs. 10-3035-10-3040.
RESERVED.
Sec. 10-3041.
STREET DESIGN STANDARDS.
(2) A recombination of lots which may either increase
the number of potential, access points along a
thoroughfare needed for the lots being recom-
bined or render existing access points noncon-
forming regarding the standards in the Street,
Sidewalk and Driveway Access Handbook is a
violation of this chapter and is impermissible
unless an appropriate legal instrument is recorded
indicating that the potential number of access
points before and after the recombination cannot
be any greater than prior to the recombination. If
a recombined lot which previously had no public
street access can only gain access onto a street in
violation of the standards of the Street, Sidewalk
and Driveway Access Handbook, then this re-
combination may be allowed if the access meets
the standards to the extent feasibly possible.
(Ord. No. 1983-153-TC-190, § 13, TC-233, 7-19-83; Ord. No. 1986-799-
TC-267, §48, TC-21-85, 6-3-86; Ord. No. 1986-847-TC- 273, §7, TC-16-
86, 9-2-86; Ord. No. 1987-3 1 -TC-296, §§61-63, TC-16-87, 12-1-87; Ord.
No. 1991-879B-TC-385, §15, TC-1213-91, 11-19-91; Ord. No. 1999-647-
TC-185, §3, TC-7-99, 10-6-99)
The design and construction of public and private streets
and sidewalks, driveway access points, and rights-of-way
requirements shall be in accordance with the standards and
requirements in the Street, Sidewalk, and Driveway Ac-
cess Handbook as amended, on file in the City Clerk's
office.
Policy reference: Variance for Street Improvements in Rural Areas,
Standard Procedure 900-9.
Sec. 10-3042.
ACCESS POINTS.
(a) For any development, the number of access points may
be restricted where it is necessary for purposes of
decreasing traffic congestion or hazards, and shall be
in accordance with the Street, Sidewalk and Drive-
way Access Handbook on file in the City Clerk's
Office. In the case of multiple lot developments or
when the adjoining property is under the same owner-
ship, these restrictions may include required recorded
common access point declarations. When adjoining
properties are owned by different persons, recorded
offers of cross access easements may be required.
(b) All land which adjoins a thoroughfare shall be subject
to the following regulations:
(1) If access to a lot adjoining a thoroughfare is to be
from a public street other than a thoroughfare,
such access shall be stated or shown on the
recorded plat. If the access is onto a thoroughfare,
the location that meets the standards of this Code
may be required to be shown on the recorded plat.
Secs. 10-3043-10-3050.
RESERVED.
Sec. 10-3051.
SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE.
(a) Connection to sanitary sewer prohibited.
No surface water drainage shall empty into a sanitary
sewer.
(b) Piping of watercourses.
This subsection applies to all storm drainage piping of
watercourses except those crossing public or private
streets: See §10-3053(c). Streets in Floodprone Areas.
All natural watercourses shall remain open and unal-
tered unless piping, enclosing or altering is requested
and justified by the developer and/or required by the
Chief Engineer, but then only when the following
conditions are met:
(1) The developer shall connect the development pipe
system to an existing public or private pipe storm
drainage system when such system, in the opinion
of the Chief Engineer, is reasonably accessible.
The developer shall do all grading and provide all
structures necessary to properly connect to the
existing storm drainage system;
(2) All design and construction shall be done accord-
ing to City .standards;
10/3-27

Thoroughfare Improvements
Complete thoroughfare improvements, in conformance with the minimum roadway design cross-
sections illustrated in Section 4.1, shall be made by developments along the entire length of a
thoroughfare system roadway, if any of the following three conditions exist:
1) A development is located within 400 feet of an existing or proposed intersection of either two
(2) thoroughfare system roadways or a thoroughfare system roadway and a collector street
system roadway, and the improvement can be utilized by motorists as a travel lane or
turning lane to improve vehicle delay, congestion or safety.
2) The predicted vehicle trips generated by a development during peak travel periods,
combined with the background traffic volume traveling on the thoroughfare system
roadway(s), would reduce the roadway or nearby intersections' capacity below Level-0f--
Service 'D', as defined in the Hi.Qhwau Capacifu Manual I g and the improvement can be
utilized by motorists as a travel lane or turning lane to improve vehicle delay, congestion or
safety.
3) The improvement would be an extension of an already existing widened section of roadway,
and the improvement can be utilized by motorists as a travel lane or turning lane to improve
vehicle delay, congestion or safety.
Partial thoroughfare improvements, in conformance with the minimum paving construction
standards and additional pavement surfaces to accommodate turning movements will be required in
the event complete thoroughfare improvements are not required as conditioned in the preceding
paragraph.
Dead-End Streets
Dead-end streets should be limited in use, serving residential and non-residential land uses that are
expected to generate low traffic volumes. Unless an equally safe and convenient form of turning
space is provided, dead-end streets shall terminate in a circular cul-de-sac. Dead-end streets shall
conform to the design cross-sections shown in Section 4.2.
The maximum dead-end street length serving residential dwelling units shall not exceed eight
hundred (800) linear feet. The maximum dead-end street length serving non-residential uses shall
not exceed four hundred (400) linear feet. The dead-end street length is measured from the center line
of the intersecting street to the center of the circular cul-de-sac right-of-way. In cases where there is no
cul-de-sac, the length shall be measured to the farthest point along the dead-end street from the
intersecting street.
The Transportation Director may approve extra-long dead-end streets of up to 10% above the
800-foot (residential) and 400-foot (nonresidential) standards if a finding is made that there is no
practical through extension possible due to severe topography or other physical features, or due to
existing surrounding development.
13
WITHERS &' RAVENEL
ENGINEERS 1 PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
March 9, 2005
Mr. Eric Lamb
Public Works Department
City of Raleigh
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
Mr. Paul Kallam
Public Works Department
City of Raleigh
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Cedar Grove at Wakefield Plantation
W&R #203218
Gentlemen,
On behalf on my client, Wakefield Development Company, we are requesting
approval from the City to amend our original subdivision plan for Cedar Grove at
Wakefield Plantation. Our original approval had street R002 extending across a
designated wetland channel. Due to various reasons I will explain in further detail
in the proceeding paragraphs, we would like the City's approval to cul-de-sac each
end of street R002 as it approaches the wetland channel. Please see the plan that
I have enclosed with this letter that shows the new street and lot configuration we
propose.
Over the last 3-4 months, we have met on several occasions with you and several
other key staff members to discuss the difficulties we have encountered in
crossing the wetland channel with the connecting road. As you are aware, we are
required to span the wetland channel with a bridge or bottomless culvert in order
to avoid disturbance of the wetlands. We do not have the ability to seek an
individual wetland impact permit with the USACE, due to the fact that the
residential portion of Wakefield will lose it's "grandfathering" of the Neuse River
Riparian Buffers if we seek a permit to fill. Our geotechnical engineer has made
additional borings and geotechnical investigations at the site of the bottomless
culvert, and has concluded that there is not sufficient bed rock in the immediate
vicinity to support a pile-foundation support system for this bridge. As you are
aware, it the City requirement that these types of structures be supported on bed
rock. Please see the enclosed geotechnical report prepared by Terratech, with a
complete boring log.
We have investigated the possibility of providing a connecting road that would not
have to span the wetland channel. Our investigation concludes that there are no
feasible routes to provide a connecting road without impacting the golf course
iii MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511 te1:919.4693340 fax:[phone]oo8 www.withersravenet.com
owned by the PGA. As we have shared with you in subsequent meetings, a
conservation easement has been recorded on the golf course property that
prohibits any infrastructure type construction on their property. We investigated
the possibility of extending a road in one specific area immediately north of the
furthest extent of the wetland channel. Our analysis concluded that a small
amount of right-of-way and grading easement would extend into the PGA property.
The impact to the golf course would not be practical or allowable due to the
conservation easement.
It is our understanding that the maximum length of a dead end street based on city
standards is 800 feet. The cul-de-sac length of our new plan measured from the
furthest most single point of entry (at street R004) is approximately 1,800 feet.
Our plan does have a circular roadway system internally that will provide beneficial
circulation in the area. To soften the effects or provide some sense of mitigation of
the long cul-de-sac length, we have come up with a plan that offers the following:
1. The first 500 feet of street R002 extending from street R004 to the
intersection of street R003 will be a median divided roadway. Each travel
direction on the divided roadway will be of sufficient width (24 feet) to
accommodate residents, as well as, emergency vehicles. In the unlikely
event of a vehicle breakdown or some other lane blockage in either
direction of travel, there will be an opportunity to continue getting vehicles in
and out of the area by using the other travel lane. This scenario would
reduce the cul-de-sac length to approximately 1,300 feet.
2. Wakefield has made a decision to reduce the number of lots in this phase of
the development by 10 units. The original subdivision plan would have 82
lots in this phase of the development. The new plan reduces the number of
lots to 72.
There are several existing subdivisions within Wakefield where the cul-de-sac
length exceeds the City's maximum. These subdivisions include Club Villas,
Carrington, Savannah, and Dunleith just to name a few. It is our understanding
that these already developed examples operate without detriment to public travel,
safety, or service deliveries.
We understand that you will discuss this proposal with Carl Dawson and other
members of the city staff. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of our
request, and we eagerly await your answer. If I or the Wakefield Development
team can provide you with any additional information, please do not hesitate to call
us.
Sincerely,
Jerry J. Jensen, P.E.
Project Manager
cc: Wakefield Development Company
iii MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511 tel:[phone] fax:[phone]oo8 www.withersravenel.com
L4i Innn ey: 1'2
919-390-3727
CITY RAL TRANSP
Kallam, Paul
From: Kallam, Paul
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 2;02 PM
To: 'Jerry Jensen,
Cc: Lamb, Eric; Dawson, Carl; Thompson, David; Kelly,
Subject: Cedar Grove Wakefield Plantation
Jerry,
PAGE 02
Page 1 of 1
Carl, Eric, and I met to discuss the crossing associated with Ceda Grove at Wakefield. We feel the connectivity
is important to the public and therefore we can not support the vari nce for the overly long cul-de-sac. If you do
not choose to go to Planning Commission, then you will need to pr vide us some type of connection whether it is
a different type of footing design, bridge, etc.
Paul
3/14/2005
Cedar Grove at Wakefield Plantation, Phase 3
Calculation of Impervious Surface Area Percentage
Impervious Surface Areas
Public Street Paving Area 87,048 s.f.
Public Sidewalk Paving Area 15,499 s.f.
House Footprint Area (Avg. 1,900 sq.ft. per dwelling) 157,700 s.f.
House Sidewalk Area (Avg. 150 sq.ft. per dwelling) 12,450 s.f.
House Driveway Apron Area (Avg. 400 sq.ft. per dwelling) 33,200 s.f.
otal Estimated I
urface Area = 305,897 s.f.
7.02 ac.
Common Open Space
Total Grass Areas
Impervious Surface Areas
10.13 ac.
11.90 ac.
7.02 ac.
otal Tract Area = 29.05 ac.
Impervious Surface Area Percentage = 24%
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: t?scLatitude:
Evaluator: Site:
4 t Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent ? County:
if Z 19 or perennial if a 30 e.g. Quad Name:

A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = "S Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2) 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 07) 2 3
9' Natural levees co 1 2 3
10. Headcuts IA-) 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 7 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No
Yes = 3
- Man-made ancnes are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 7) A
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 ? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season 0 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 G 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 ?., 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
(` Rinlnnv /Cut?4nt?1 = ??'""\ ? a ` l
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 -- 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2) 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 5? 1 1.5
23. Bivalves '0? 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 ') 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 > 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriatfungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
Provide the following information for the stream reach under
1 id
1. Applicants name. t q :
2. Evaluators name. 1\ p A Q 11i 1 ?
3. Date of evaluation: nZ I ' .? 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: c-- V- c' 6. River basin: e'
7. Approximate drainage
9. Length of reach evaluated: l Q Q 1
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
8. Stream order: t S
10. County: uoc, L -' .
12. Subdivision name (if any): rte) a t Z J
Longitude (ex. -77.556611): _
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other 1 t C ? , !t 1 a L%? n
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
c: ?"p- ,e
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time
V?--??cY L c c? q
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed?.I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 0 If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ?'E NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 9 NO
21. Estimated watershed land use:.% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested LG % Cleared / Logged [ % Other (
i
22. Bankfull width: i f 1 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): C? t
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%)?> Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ?/ Ll `171 [ 11A Date
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
M
assessment: ?
This channel evaluation 'form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
cn
0
L
U
a?
O
L-
0
L -
cu
0
um)
0
O
N
LO
N
Tl-
/
o , 334
/

/
333

rn 70

?
rn
X
Z 32
/
-I
-I
rn
X'325
O U.) /
Z 32
----------------------
321
320
1
Z /
/ ? , /I 1 li i 1 \ I 01-
Fil \ \ ??\
P m
-j
r m )?:-
3 ? >
?m n O
,. D
4 S N m
to
D _
A f
T n
' m
o
N Z C,4 W
m
r
o
Fl- ,
' / , I hl z /D 111 \ \\\\ \\
>IM
I /
r
/ I
r1i
a
I / S
/?? CO c,o
' (n ? Z \
r ' I / z \\\
%
\k X? to
18 0 ? ? "' 0 1
\ 11
FT?
\\ ? ? t
16 0 N ) °
/
/ \ r Co
O
? ? i P, i
- - I I rT, / /
s \ l i ? P,? l i
C N 1 /
74
m
D
n
z
rrl
a
y
?a
0Co
r
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

CHARACTERISTI ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
CS SCORE

1 11 1 Coastal
1,.. Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of now / persistent pools in stream
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points
2 Evidence of past human alteration

extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5
3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer= max points t r
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
,.7 5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4 -5
U no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands etc. = max points)
+-?
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0
2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points) - Y
Entrenchment I floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 9

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
no wetlands= 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points 0-6 0-4 0-2
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3

extensive channel ization = 0; natural meander= max oints)
s
Z
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate # .?
fine homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) 1` A , 0-4 0-5

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-
4
0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) _

J
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5

?
severe erosion = 0; no erosion stable banks = max points) -

14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
F (no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)

IS Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0
.

(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 t
w

16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes

riffl
/
i p l
l
-
op
0-3
0-5
0-6

2
~ no
es
r
es or poo
s= 0
well-devel
-developed= max points) s
i
17 Habitat complexity

little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max hints)
0-6
0-6
0-6

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5 L
`
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 1

19 Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0--4
0-4
'
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max s --J
t 20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
id
=
0-4
0-5
0-5

Z
no ev
ence
0; common, numerous types = max oints
1 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 Z
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
O 22 Presence offish - 0-4 0-4 0-4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-G
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0: abundant evidence - max ants)

Total Points Possible loo 100 100

TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first
Page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
r ~
V V V V l.?/111
t .. .,w
PROGRAM
December 12, 2005
Kevin Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Project: Cedar Grove at Wakefield
County: Wake
n
R E C E I V E
DEC 15 2005 U
By: Soil 6 Enrlronmental Consuhants, PA
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NC EEP) is willing to
accept payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that
the payment will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the .
applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NC EEP will be approved.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. If we have not received a copy of the issued 404
Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send
copies of the 404/401/CAMA permits to NC EEP. Once NC EEP receives a copy of the 404 Permit and/or the 401
Certification an invoice will be issued and payment must be made.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the
following table.
River Basin Wetlands Stream Buffer Buffer
Cataloging (Acres) (Linear Feet) Zone 1 Zone 2
Unit (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.)
Riparian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh Cold Cool Warm
Neuse 0 0 0 0 0 188 0 0
03020201
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation for the permitted impacts
up to a 2:1 ratio, (buffers, Zone 1 at a 3:1 ratio and Zone 2 at a 1.5:1 ratio). The type and amount of the compensatory
mitigation will be as specified in the Section 404 Permit and/or 401 Water Quality Certification, and/or CAMA Permit. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N. C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at [phone].
Sincerely,
W ' m D. Gilmore, PE?
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Monte Matthews, USACE - Raleigh
Eric Kulz, DWQ Regional Office - Raleigh
File
Restores... ... Protectr t-t9 Oct, Stag
ern
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
1 1
US Army Corps PUBLIC NOTICE
Of Engineers
Wilmington District
Issue Date: January 5, 2006
Comment Deadline: February 6, 2006
Corps Action ID #: 200620190
All interested parties are herby advised that the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
(Corps) has received an application for work within jurisdictional waters of the United
States. Specific plans and location information are described below and shown on the
attached plans. This Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the
Wilmington District Web Site at www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands
Applicant: Sandler at Wakefield, LLC
3209 Gresham Lake Road, Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27615 w n? D
U D
AGENT: Soil and Environmental Consultant
11010 Raven Ridge Road 1 tip06
Raleigh, NC 27614 PN QU??H
R e
Authority n?NS40%
The Corps will evaluate this application and a decide whether to issue, conditionally
issue, or deny the proposed work pursuant to applicable procedures Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
Location
The site is located within the existing Cedar Grove at Wakefield Plantation subdivision,
west of Wakefield Plantation Drive, near Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina. The
project site is located adjacent to an unnamed tributary to Richland Creek, which drains
into the Neuse River Basin (Latitude and Longitude in Deci-degrees: 35.9660 N; -
78.5552 W).
Existing Site Conditions
The site indicated for the proposed Cedar Grove at Wakefield.Plantation subdivision
expansion is owned by Sandler of Wakefield, LLC and is considered undeveloped land
within an existing subdivision/golf community. An unnamed, perennial tributary to
Richland Creek flows through the site, with 188 linear feet proposed for culverting to
accommodate the expansion. Vegetation near this stream is identified as a sparse,
immature hardwood forest and pasture grass.
Cultural Resources
The Corps has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of Historic
Places and is not aware that any registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein are located within the project area or will be affected by the
proposed work. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistoric, or historical
data may be located within the project area and/or could be affected by the proposed
work.
Endangered Species
The Corps has reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the
applicant and consulted the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on
available information, the Corps is not aware of the presence of species listed as -
threatened or endangered or their critical habitat formally designated pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) within the project area. A final determination on
the effects of the proposed project will be made upon additional review of the project and
completion of any necessary biological assessment and/or consultation with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service."
Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest.
That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of
important resources. The benefit, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors
which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects
thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental
concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain
values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation, shoreline
erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy
needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property
ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving
the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, the evaluation of
the impact of the activity on the public interest will include application of the
Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Commenting Information
The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local agencies and
officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the
impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the
Corps to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal.

?R?V.QTE \
RAINAG€ \` \
\\ E NT"-,"" - WETLANd(5 -o
\ \ \ \\ \ \ ? \ \C\l
\ \ \
\ \\ `,` \\ \\ `\ \ ?\ \\ \\ .\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ try \ \ ?
'INN
\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \
\ \\\ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \
No. Revision Date By Deslger ..
wka -30 CEDAR GROVE, PHASE 3
Drawn By Date
w&a"-0'
Checked By lob No, AT WAKEFIELD PLANTATION
wxR 107z,e.C - ' ' c o? a
j^}
_t
1\3
O
G.
N
r?
rti.
r-;
z

H
? Ft d
N a ~
O C
cn
N
r H
N ]
O 0
?
O O
r
CD
O
L" m

a
It
n
b
H H G
C v r
~
O to
F.. rr
2 L<
N
r b
N a
rl
O (D
0
Li ?j
o m
W M
J O
11
o
m
d
a
rt
r
to N
J a, o
C) (D o
CD m cn
S ?
lD (D
? n
o x x
in n ? Z
O O rt
O a 6
N
O
r5
N
O_
r
m
O
Z
m
Z
a
r
n
O
Z
N
C
D
Z
N
T.
O
O
O
ro ?
a ?
{n '-? to
J ? J
Cn O Cn
G J
C) a o r
O rt O J